Unthreaded (Commenters do the news… part II)

Try the absurd Methane Madness if you haven’t already! Discuss how the big Gore event came and went with barely a trace, and marks the fall of the man who set alight much of the Greenhouse Extravaganza. Or there’s the coolest UK summer in 20 years… wiping out masses of blue butterflies. (Where is the Green angst: “Stop the cooling trend — Save the Butterfly — Donate a sunspot?”).

291 comments to Unthreaded (Commenters do the news… part II)

“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive” Sir Walter Scott 1771-1832

Some people refuse to learn from history and continue to hope that faking it makes it so. Reality always has the last word no matter how many wish otherwise. The fabricators of AGW-CGCC are trapped in the web of their own making. Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving group.

“….Steven Schneider, Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming. He is most famous for stating that climatologists should only present the most dramatic and frightening scenarios and find their own balance between truth and lies. He has been a lead author of many IPCC reports, and was the editor of ” Scientists on Gaia” in which he states “the Gaia Hypothesis has now become established in mainstream science.” In 1988 also organised the first international conference to discuss “Gaia and Science”.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sir Richard Branson, multibillionaire and founder of the Virgin group of companies. Sir Richard has certainly jumped on board the Global Warming bandwagon in a big way. According to Branson during a brief discussion over breakfast with Al Gore, “my views on global warming were changed 180 degrees.” That Al guy sure must be persuasive! Branson has since pledged to donate three billion dollars (!!) to “fund the fight against climate change.” Branson has also launched his ‘Climate Challenge’ which offers a prize of $25 million to anyone who can remove carbon dioxide fro the atmosphere. The panel of judges for this challenge are Al Gore, James Lovelock, Sir Crispin Tickell, Tim Flannery and James Hansen.

“It will have to be a mix of the best solutions from all these areas that will win the battle to keep CO2 levels below those at which Gaia will strike back at some stage, and kill the problem – in this case us .” – Richard Branson interview

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dr Tim Flannery, Evolutionary Biologist and very well known environmental activist. He is the Australian version of Jane Goodall. Although Dr Flannery has no training in anything remotely related to climate science he is one of the worlds most vocal alarmists. He travels continuously around world giving lectures on ‘the Climate Catastrophe’ and often refers to Gaia as a sentient super-organism. His website is http://www.groveatlantic.com/timflannery.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ted Turner, multibillionaire and founder of CNN. Turner is deeply involved in the Global Green Agenda. He donated more than a billion dollars to the UN which was specifically tagged to fund the IPCC. Turner personally conceived and produced ‘Captain Planet’ an edu-tainment cartoon designed to brainwash our children……..

18 Sept: BBC: China: Villagers protest at Zhejiang solar panel plant
Hundreds of villagers in eastern China have held three days of protests at a solar panel plant over pollution fears.
Around 500 people started gathering at Zhejiang Jinko Solar company in Haining city, Zhejiang province, on Thursday.
Some of protesters stormed the factory, overturning several company cars and destroying offices, officials said.
Residents in the nearby village of Hongxiao said they became concerned after the deaths of a large number of river fish.
One 64-year-old villager told the Associated Press that the factory – located close to a school and kindergarten – discharges waste into the river and spews dense smoke out of a dozen chimneys.
“The villagers strongly request that this factory be moved to another area,” he said. “I am very worried about the health of the younger generation”…
The company is a subsidiary of a New York Exchange-listed Chinese solar company, JinkoSolar Holding Company…http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14963354

19 Sept: Australian: Christian Kerr: 90pc of manufacturing sector faces full impact of carbon tax
Research by the Australian Trade and Industry Alliance shows less than nine per cent of the 1.05 million-strong manufacturing workforce are employed by firms likely to get assistance under the government’s jobs and competitiveness program.
In contrast, the alliance says 42 per cent of European manufacturing jobs are shielded under the EU carbon pricing scheme.
It warns more than 950,000 local jobs will be under pressure as employers battle higher power costs and higher prices for both raw materials and manufactured inputs under a carbon tax, while trying to compete against international rivals who will pay no extra charges…http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/pc-of-manufacturing-sector-faces-full-impact-of-carbon-tax/story-fn59niix-1226140364099

forget that energy bills have already skyrocketed – like the water bills – on account of the Govt’s “renewable energy” targets and “drought-proofing” on account of CAGW scare stories. forget that energy and water bills affect every cost in society!

19 Sept: SMH: Peter Martin: Everyday cost of carbon tax will be minimal – except on energy bills
Releasing the calculations in the midst of parliamentary debate on the bills set to last until November, the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, said the government would provide assistance to cover the higher costs, of an average of $10.10 a household a week – slightly more than the increased costs, which would average $9.90 a week.
“Households that improve their energy efficiency – by doing things such as turning off appliances at the wall or switching light bulbs – can end up coming out in front,” he said. ”They can help the environment and their family budget at the same time.”…http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/everyday-cost-of-carbon-tax-will-be-minimal–except-on-energy-bills-20110918-1kg6a.html

interestingly i posted the Chris Huhne piece on Bishop Hill yesterday, but the following has been removed from the article today – wonder why?

“The stealth levies, introduced to fund Britain’s investment in wind and solar power, are costing families an average of £200 a year – two-thirds of the amount the Cabinet Minister said they should be able to save.
This represents an increase of between 15 and 20 per cent on the average domestic power bill. The money is being used to help fund the building of 10,000 wind turbines and the proposed installation of £7 billion worth of smart meters in homes.”

am still asking, why is the Coalition still talking about reducing carbon dioxide emissions when so many countries have yet to develop, and emissions will increase worldwide no matter what pretense is made at reducing them:

15 Sept: Business Spectator: AAP: Abbott rejects industry carbon credits call
Opposition leader Tony Abbott says the coalition won’t be supporting the purchase of carbon offsets from overseas, despite calls from business and industry.
The Australian Industry Greenhouse Network, which represents mining and manufacturing industries, has said an emissions cut of five per cent by 2020 can’t be achieved through a carbon price or direct action within Australia alone…
Mr Abbott said the coalition’s policy was costed and capped at $3.2 billion over four years.
“We won’t spend a dollar more than that,” he said.
“We are very confident that we can get at least a five per cent reduction by spending the money.”http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Business-want-more-overseas-carbon-permits-LPS59?opendocument&src=rss

a most interesting exchange, but it still begs the questions – why is the Coalition, therefore, still saying it will reduce carbon dioxide emissions, is the Coalition still planning to allow local “carbon offsets”, does that include trading with New Zealand?
why not just dump the whole nonsense and get back to a time when “carbon” wasn’t mentioned in nearly every ad, TV/radio program, newspaper article blah blah. Climategate signalled the end of the CAGW scam, so admit it and get back to basics:

18 Sept: ABC: Carbon tax ‘not going to clean-up Australia’
BARRIE CASSIDY: But that’s where this assertion that your program would cost double the Government’s is on this issue of foreign carbon permits.
Do you regard that as a completely pointless exercise?
GREG HUNT: Well I think there’s a best case and a worst case scenario.
The best case scenario is that Australia will transfer $3.5 billion a year by 2020 to maybe cleaning up an Indian coal fired power station so they can continue to use coal in India, maybe building a new Russian nuclear plant.
The worst case scenario is that you have this massive fraud as you’ve seen in Europe in the last year where in Norway of all countries, one of the most sophisticated countries in the world, they’ve had a $5 billion fraud according to the Australian Crime Commission.
In Italy the Mafia was engaged in the process, so much so that they declared one of the dons lord of the winds.
BARRIE CASSIDY: But hang on, are you saying that international carbon credits are a pointless exercise?
GREG HUNT: You can have things which work and you can have things that don’t. But the idea…
BARRIE CASSIDY: Tony Abbott’s description, do you agree with it, it’s pointless?
GREG HUNT: What the Government is proposing is pointless because Australian emissions will go up.
And here’s the great deception. The Government says it’s looking to clean up the Australian economy. It’s not.
What it’s doing is it’s sending $3.5 billion, it will go from taxpayers, your listeners in the form of higher electricity charges through companies that have to purchase foreign carbon credits. Many of them are likely to be of dubious provenance.
And the best case scenario is they’re not cleaning up the Australian economy. They’re driving up the cost of operating the Australian economy and doing something to maybe allow the Indians to use coal fired power but in a slightly different form.
BARRIE CASSIDY: Yeah but does it matter though? Does it matter where the pollution is reduced as long as it’s reduced? It doesn’t matter that it’s reduced in Australia; if it’s reduced in India then you get the same effect?
GREG HUNT: Well unfortunately there are two problems with that. The first is the level of fraud which the Australian Crime Commission warned of this year. Whether it is the example of Norway or what we see in Hungary where there was an enormous Ponzi scheme in carbon credits this year…
BARRIE CASSIDY: Yeah you’ve gone to that…
GREG HUNT: …or in Italy or elsewhere…
BARRIE CASSIDY: You’ve already explained that. But you’re saying that you can’t have carbon trading without fraud?
GREG HUNT: No. What I am saying is the international system at the moment is extremely undeveloped.
Eighty-five per cent of global carbon credits are coming out of Europe which has had a massive fraud. The Treasury modelling predicts that 50 per cent will come from either Russia or other parts of Asia. Many countries which are expected to be providing the carbon credits are at the absolute top of the international transparency lists of countries which have no ability to provide proper transparency.
We want to clean up Australia. They want to send money overseas. And that is the difference. And they want to do it by driving up the cost of electricity. And that’s the fundamental flaw.
They’re not going to clean up Australian power stations. They’re not going to clean up emissions here. They’re going to transfer huge volumes of funds overseas.
And that by the way is why the advertising is misleading and why we are going to write to the Prime Minister and ask the Prime Minister to pull a $25 million taxpayer funded advertising campaign.
BARRIE CASSIDY: There’s not much chance of that.
You say that you want them to clean up Australia but it’s about the world. It’s about cleaning up the world. So I go back to the point, does it matter where this takes effect as long as it takes effect?
GREG HUNT: Well if you are raising $105 billion in taxes between now and 2020 you’d hope that it might perhaps clean up Australia.
And that’s the problem with the Government’s system. It’s not cleaning up Australia. Best case scenario is that we are sending by 2020 $3.5 billion which might help with a new Russian nuclear power station or it might help clean up an Indian coal fired power station.
But it’s not going to clean up Australia and the Government has not been honest about that. And nor are they giving the people the chance to make that decision, which they should.
BARRIE CASSIDY: So what do you say to industry who want more opportunities to trade overseas, not less?
GREG HUNT: Well what industry wants is either no carbon tax or a carbon tax at a dramatically lower price. If…
BARRIE CASSIDY: And the opportunity to use international credits.
GREG HUNT: If you have our system you don’t need to do that because all we’re doing is providing incentives to clean up Australia.
What the Government is doing is lifting the operating cost in terms of electricity, in terms of gas, in terms of transport for the whole economy and therefore in order to actually reduce emissions they’ve still got to go offshore.
And that’s a very odd situation which is completely at odds with their rhetoric and their advertising.
And in particular their modelling assumes that the United States will have a fully integrated, effective cap and trade or carbon tax system by 2016 which is a fantasy.
They should reintroduce the modelling this week, give the Australian people time to respond to it through the Joint Select Committee, give them a month to respond.
What most people wouldn’t know is they’ve got four working days to respond to the wrong carbon price, the wrong assumptions about the United States and to get it into a Joint Select Committee or have no say ever because they will never get a vote under this Government…http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-18/carbon-tax-not-going-to-clean-up-australia/2904744

THE government’s legislative program faces chaos, with its partners the Greens resisting moves to extend sitting hours in the Senate.

The impasse has raised speculation the Greens may be attempting to extract additional concessions from the government.

This speculation reached new peaks last week when Greens deputy leader Christine Milne was appointed deputy chairwoman of the parliamentary inquiry into the carbon tax bills.Convention dictates that deputies’ positions go to the opposition.

THE Gillard government has failed to produce a review of efforts to prepare Australia for already locked-in effects of climate change.

But the Government has now conceded the report has not been written and is not expected until 2012.

Concerned Australians MUST speak up, NOW!

In an underhand move, Julia Gillard and Bob Brown have secretly annoucned that all public submissions on this 1,100 page bill must be made in just one week – submissions closing on the 22nd of September.

That’s right, they’re is giving us just one week to read and comment on over 1000 pages of legislation.

And the icing on the cake?

She decided to cancel public hearings around Australia (something that is always done with major legislation). She said there “isn’t enough time”.

It’s not just the UK feeling the cold. According to the BoM, Darwin has just experienced its coldest dry season on record, and the Northern Territory has had the longest run of cool nights and mornings in 35 years.

Where I live in the Blue Mountains (NSW) it was so cold that we lost a whole plantation of young Snow Gums. The relentless hard frosts and many nights with temps below -6 proved too much for the young trees. In August this year our large dam froze solid and did not thaw for 2 days. The old timers tell us that they haven’t seen cold like this since the ’70s. But of course, it’s just weather.

For those of us Sun lovers, a comment from the BBC’s weather & climate guy:

“Of all the long range forecasts I read, only Piers Corbyn at Weather Action can claim success with his summer forecast.”

That must really hurt having to say that. Piers Corbyn (who can make CAGW’ers explode in instantaneous fury on sight) for those who haven’t come across him uses solar plus lunar cycles to produce medium to long term weather predictions.

This is despite the official lot in the UK Met Office being so brave as to refuse to say anything at all about prospects for summer. This might be a result of the fun had by us all the previous winter.

Could someone explain to me just what the scientific backing for the carbon tax is again?

I hope people don’t mind that I have pasted this accross from the ‘skeptic’ post.
It is a conclusion of a debate with ‘Team Adam’

So there you have it folks!
The Gummit backed up by the bureaucrats, bankers and brokers have figured out FINALLY how to charge us all for the air we breathe…and it doesn’t really matter which side of politics it is.
Because they couldn’t control our supply of the atmosphere they have formulated a plan that justifies the need to ‘protect’ it from carbon based life forms who need to breathe and civilization that needs to produce!

Hence this comment….

So is the atmosphere.

And because it is such a masterful sales job and so many of us fell for it, it is imperative that this plan is protected forever.
After spending so much time and money figuring out how to charge us for the air we breathe, we couldn’t possibly allow it to be dismantled….hence this comment….

I’m not blinkered at all. At the next election you will have a choice between keeping the ETS which would’ve been in operation for a year and some months, and will include income tax cuts. Or you can vote for the Coalition which is currently promising to dismantle the ETS (but you know that won’t actually happen because it would cost tax payers perhaps $10 billion) and will result in them increasing income taxes for everyone by repealing the bill that changed the tax free threshold.

And just in case we do figure out a way to dismantle the legislation, then here is the back up plan courtesy of Tristan….

When you combine that with a similarly constructed damage bill estimate for various levels of warming/cooling you know what sort of insurance the world should be paying. There doesn’t need to be ‘certainty’ to purchase insurance, you buy insurance according to the damage:probability function and the cost:benefit analysis associated with the various levels of spending.

And last but not least we’re all being re assured that ‘life will go on’ .

And it will. In fact what if we make a pact to meet here on July 1st next year to see how things are going? I suggest you’ll be getting on with your life fine.

If nothing else you have to congratulate them all for the mastermind plan that it is

We can now be legitimately charged for the right to breathe and we have a ‘market’ for the air that we breathe.

I sincerely hope that a decent cost/benefits analysis has been done as our ruling elite considers how this windfall will be re distributed.
Both sides of politics say they can…..we shall see.
If history is anything to go by…. I seriously doubt it.
The next generation will likely be subjected to yet another master mind plan to charge them for something else they traditionally believed was their basic inalieble right. (and yes I know I spelt that wrong but I can’t be bothered to look it up )

I find it simultaneously sad and amusing that this man is under the delusion that Britain is faring well economically … perhaps he was on an overseas junket when the austerity riots were raging? Anywho, I politely told him to go peddle crazy elsewhere:

Yes Britain is faring exceptionally well economically, isn’t she? ooops. Britain also uses a fair amount of nuclear electricity generation capacity, somethign Australians will not even begin to contemplate due to their irrational fear of said industry.

Further, per capita measurements of emissions are grossly misleading statistics. Australia’s population is a fraction that of Britain, and we also export much of the energy we consume embodied in goods exported overseas. The vast majority of these goods do not return in other forms, so you can accurately say that we consume this energy as a proxy for other nations’ wellbeing, such as Britain for example.

I think it particularly arrogant therefore that a British citizen should preach to Australians (perhaps you still consider us to be your subjects?) how to best send our economy into permanent recession. You’ve managed to bring the UK to the precipice of economic destruction, go peddle this nonsense elsewhere please.

Debbie @15
And not to forget Adam suggesting in the last thread that a Carbon Tax was the best way to “convince” the population that wind and solar are impractical for baseload power, so that would facilitate the debate on nuclear! Huhh??? So then why are we spending so much money on something so impractical, and in trying to convince the population that wind and solar can supply all our power needs, and not having the debate about the merits or otherwise of nuclear. Lordy, Lordy! They are twisted little blighters that spew out unmitigated tripe with monotonous regularity. If only we could find a way to harness all that useless energy, we might be onto a perpetual source of renewable power to use for generations to come.

And not to forget Adam suggesting in the last thread that a Carbon Tax was the best way to “convince” the population that wind and solar are impractical for baseload power, so that would facilitate the debate on nuclear!

I never used the term “convince”, that is something you invented. I said it will just become a more attractive option when solar and wind remain hideously expensive in baseload configurations.

In a sense Al Gore has been right all along — there really is nothing to debate. That’s because this has never been about facts or science but about politics. And politics is always about power; who will have political power and who will not.

While we have won the fight about the facts and the science I fear we have lost the political battle. Of course other things like profligate spending in the EU and the U.S. are also in the mix so it isn’t so simple a problem to fight. But clearly the western world has let political power get into the hands of some of the most ruthless politicians to ever ask for our vote.

They have laid their plans well and getting rid of them will be a hard uphill fight. But they cannot stay in power for ever. The very ruthless squeezing of the wealth creators they need to do to stay in power will collapse at some point. The only open questions are: How long will it take? And how bad must things get before it happens?

That your new carbon dioxide tax ETS there in Australia has a poison pill built in is truly an act of pure evil in my humble opinion.

Adam
So why waste bucketloads of money on wind and solar schemes, if the end game is allegedly nuclear. Why not just cut to the chase and go for it with promoting nuclear as an option to facilitate infrastructure investment – you could even force the coalition into supporting that idea (it would be embarrassing for them not to support it), especially now that you’re desperately trying to portray them as spoilers. It could even help to win you the next election if you played your cards right and if they didn’t support your proposition.

The real reason is because Labor are not now, nor are they ever, even likely to propose nuclear as an option because it is in their leftist DNA to oppose it (perhaps with one or two exceptions you suggest). And that still doesn’t explain why we should send money overseas in carbon abatement to help build nuclear plants in India or somewhere like that, but won’t do it here. And why can’t we just improve the efficiency of coal burning power stations here instead of helping a 3rd world despot pocket our hard earned money on the pretext of building a “clean” coal power plant to service their population, whom said despot is keen to keep in poverty and ignorance to entrench their own power in perpetuity.

The whole foundation of the economics of the idea of pricing carbon is fundamentally ill conceived and naive, yet no amount of reasoning can make you admit it. And bottom line is it will make no difference whatsoever to global temperatures irregardless, even if you believed AGW bunkum, so the question is… why do it at all? It’s economic seppuku for a worthless gesture to placate UN internationalists and banker scam artists. China must be laughing heartily at our stupidity, choking on their egg fu yung with delight.

Hi all. Was checking weather this morning because, in spite of the long drenching, September is getting a little too dry for my bamboo.

I happened across some interesting BOM records for my region, which is mid-way between Sydney and Brizzie.

Our driest September, with no rain at all, was 1907.
Our wettest September was 1914.
Our wettest September day was in 1932.
Our hottest September day was in 1965.
Our coldest September day was in 2006.
Our hottest September was in 1919.
Our coolest September was in 1932.

Of course, none of this means anything. For example, I’m saying “hottest” and “coolest” in reference to daily recorded maxima, which doesn’t account for a host of other factors, eg mean minima. And I’m isolating a time period, omitting wind, cloud cover, duration factors, all kinds of contextual stuff.

I know I’m manipulating, distorting, just by stating these simple facts in list form. I know how such facts can easily become outrageous factoids in the hands of spin-merchants. It’s just that the Green/GetUp spin-merchants won’t like these particular facts, and will find them rather resistant to factoid-processing.

Adam – I’ve worked on effluent treatment for a long time. One site we had a EPA licence that meant any water coming onto the property had to be treated because the natural water failed the water quality requirements for discharge. So we’d suck up the water in the creek, treat it then put it back in the creek. Another site was even worse – the effluent treatment licence required us to remove copper to below 5 ppb (which we were able to do), but the licence required this to be measured AFTER a 10:1 dilution in sea water. The problem is that the natural level of copper in seawater is 6 ppb…

There is no “finite amount that can go into the atmosphere”. There is sensible risk assessment and management. The government’s carbon tax is neither sensible nor scientifically justifiable, just like that 5 ppb copper limit.

Bruce @ 26
Very well said!
Saying that we’re paying for the ‘right to put GHGs (pollution) into the atmosphere’ is an absolute nonsense when we check the scientific data.
I very much like the example you use as a comparison.
The GHG (pollution) component is almost impossible to measure accurately (as a potentially dangerous substance) because they all occur naturally in the atmosphere anyway and in varying degrees and have done so in Millenium.
But it’s OK because the Gummit is doing it to protect IT(???) from us disgusting, evil polluters
It’s INSURANCE (????)

John Brookes:
September 19th, 2011 at 11:27 am
Hey GeeAye, if you follow the link, you’ll find its 20-80cm, which probably rules out the more pornographic option. Luckily Wendy didn’t mention the 80cm bit, because that would have been alarmist

And Wendy, are you the same Wendy who used to be here? And if so, does that mean that Damien Allen will suddenly disappear?

gee (aye) John….and you accuse ME of withholding information???
20 cm by 2020 and 80 cm by 2050 per the article quoted.
No….I’ve only joined recently but have been a lurker for a while. Make all the insinuations you want….you’ll be wrong every time.

Just as there is a market for water, so that water goes to people who can use it most profitably

So you contend that there are no such thing as the right to expect governments to facilitate the provision of decent drinking water for the population in a 1st world economy, or exhaling for that matter, unless you can demonstrate it’s “profitability”. It’s clear that the basic rights and freedoms we once took for granted are being taken away with impugnity by people who have no sense of morality whatsoever. We have commoditised basic essentials for the survival of the human organism, thereby signing it’s death warrant. If regressive education doesn’t send us back to the dark ages, consigning property rights to the air we breathe and the water we drink most certainly will. Just because we are paranoid, doesn’t mean that the bastards aren’t out to get us!

I’m not sure about signing its death warrant….but following the logic through certainly can lead to that conclusion.
Hopefully we won’t be that silly
It will end up being very expensive to breathe and drink and eat and build houses and produce….that bit is very clear.
But it’s OK…It’s for ‘protection’ against those evil polluters….who are amazingly the same bodies that supply us energy, water, food, building materials and manufactured goods.
It truly is a work of political and legislative art

This is a good interview by Alan Jones with Prof Henry Ergas . He shows how the co2 tax will cripple Australia for decades into the future and how this idiot govt are inserting a poison pill into the legislation to include property rights for holders of carbon permits.

Of course co2 emissions will continue to soar into the future thanks to China, India etc increasing their emissions every year.

We’ll buy these fraudulent permits from countries that are totally corrupt and of course we won’t be greening Oz but helping fraudsters overseas to pocket billions every year for a zero return and zero change to the climate.

awww, but al gore implied that melting arctic sea ice would raise the sea levels everywhere. He even showed some pretty nice graphics showing what new york and other cities would look like under this uniformed sea level rise mentioned by the UN!

And he showed us that animated polar bear drowning due to a lack of ice!

And and then he used a ladder to show how C02 levels were growing exponentially starting before now!

And and then he talked about how Antarctica was losing its ice shelves!

You don’t mean to say that… (gulp) … The man who lost an election to GWBush might be… uhmmm….. wrong do you?

You don’t also mean that his academy award winning documentary might have been misleading would you? It was in the documentary section of the video store and everything!

Cut-and-Paste is a marvellous implement. Some posters and commenters use it with the abrasive gusto of a teenage boy who has just discovered his…well, you get my meaning.

Here is a Cut-and-Paste quote from a Murdoch press article. It confirms what Bob Brown and Ross Garnaut have been trying to tell us:

China has closed down hundreds of its more inefficient coal-fired stations in the past few years.

Insert a pious comment here, about how to look our trading partners in the eye. There’s more, thanks to Cut-and-Paste:

it also became the world’s largest manufacturer of wind turbines and solar panels and a leader in the development of carbon sequestration technology.

Insert more pieties about looking trading partners in the eye etc.

On the other hand, if a skeptic, God forbid, should learn to command our best buddy, Cut-and-Paste…

Wind power now accounts for less than 1 per cent of China’s energy needs while solar constitutes one-thousandth of 1 per cent of the country’s energy use.

…people might conclude that a whole bunch of coal is being burnt to manufacture cheap Green crap for the dopey gweilo.

But what about all those coal-plant closures? Help, Cut-and-Paste!

Here’s the bit about coal plant closures with the context.

China has closed down hundreds of its more inefficient coal-fired stations in the past few years. But for every coal-fired station shut down in the past three years, two have sprung up. While gross domestic product has been growing at about 10 per cent during the past five years, Chinese consumption of coal has been increasing at about 17 per cent each year

Clearly, there has to be a media inquiry about restricting the use of Cut-and-Paste to responsible members of the Fairfax readership.

But don’t worry – the chinese and the indians can live in their cest pool created by our demand, and that’s the main thing.

After all, why should we live with the pollution our wants generate?

Just like carbon offsets and the ETS, it’ll make us feel better about offshoring our pollution. Everyone can pollute, provided they have the money to pay for it.

At least the solar and wind farm sales guys will be able to shift more product. Even the fukishima nuclear lobby can be made to look good under this regime eh! I hear they have some cheap second hand reactor parts they would be happy to donate to us.

I wonder if we could swap the German nuclear plants for our coal plants? Both countries could save some money on the deal. Germany is replacing their nukes with coal fired stations anyways. Ours are all broken in.

And as for the nuclear waste. Simple solution to that one, have a nuclear waste dump located in each of the electorates whose MPs vote for the carbon tax legislation.

After all, those MPs are obviously keen on butchering our economy to make the unpalatable, paletable, so they should lead by example.

For any of you who ‘may’ just be swayed by Doctor Smith’s sanguine belief that there will be a Nuclear power future for Australia, take everything he says about that with a grain dose of salt.

Nobody of any political persuasion is even daring to mention nuclear power as a future option. The current ‘Clean Energy Future’ means Wind and Solar only.

He claims his piece of paper will facilitate this move to Nuclear power by making coal fired power more expensive, thus able to compete with Nuclear power.

That may even be true, (in his mind well) and while this may seem like a concession, be very aware it is not, and it needs very careful explanation. You see, Doctor Smith knows politics, but he is clueless when it comes to electrical power generation, as he has shown so graphically over the last week.

Since its inception Nuclear power generation of electricity has not only been the cheapest method of generating large scale electricity, it is in fact just over half as expensive as the next nearest option, coal fired power.

There are sites around that actually quote NEW nuclear plants as being more expensive than any other form of power generation, and the up front construction is in fact considerably more expensive.

However, when taken over the life of the plant, that electricity is in fact considerably cheaper than any other form of generation, and again, this needs careful explanation.

Those sites consistently quote best case scenarios for the options they favour, Wind and Solar, and at the same time quote worst case scenarios for everything else, with special consideration for coal fired power, making it expensive by including any ETS implications, and also adding on CCS, a dream that will never be realised on the scale required.

When those ‘green oriented’, (hence anti nuclear) sites do their calculations, the life span they quote is for the original licensing period of 40 years. Those plants, being of robust nature can be further licensed out for periods of 20 years. However, only that original 40 years is taken into account, and with that huge up front construction cost, then the lifetime cost is always high, in fact slightly higher than new technology coal with everything, which also uses only that 40 year life license, a period that also can be extended.

When it comes to Wind and Solar, they have a life span, at the absolute best case scenario of only 25 years, something that cannot be extended, because they are literally finished by that time.

So, that original licensing period of 40 years for Nuclear plants.

Nearly all Nuclear plants in the U.S. are more than 40 years old, some many more than that. Nearly all of them have had their license extended to 60 years, and most have said that they will be seeking extension for a further period of 20 years, because plants of this nature can actually operate for that 80 years, and more feasibly.

Now here’s another known fact. Even though those Nuclear plants make up just less than 10% of total U.S. capacity, they in fact provide a tick over 22% of the total consumed power in the U.S. They do this at a Capacity factor of 90/91%, and in the 2 peak seasons, that CF is up around 95%.

Keep in mind that no new plants have been constructed since the 70′s barring the last opened in 1996, those plants have consistently been increasing the power they provide for the U.S. increasing by between 2 and 5% each year, with no new plants.

This has been achieved by upgrades to the generators mostly, because this actually can be done with these types of plants, hence the increase in power supplied to consumers.

However, there is a worrying thing happening now.

New planned Nuclear plants are increasing in cost at the Construction end of the plan. The worrying part now is that because they have been out of construction for so long, there is conjecture that there may not be any construction entities with the expertise to construct any of the new plants, even in the U.S.

Construction time, post 2016 is expected to blow out from the current expected 7 years to more than 11 years.

So then, let’s now place this in the context of Doctor Smith’s sanguine Nuclear future for Australia.

As he so eloquently says, The Greens will control the Senate until 2017, so any discussion cannot even start until then. Let’s pretend everything lines up and the public immediately accepts Nuclear power. Yeah right!

The legislation has to be proposed, put before the public at an election, 2020, and then approved through both Houses.

Then remember, rush rush rush, we can import the assemblies by Sea. Yeah right! Get that approved.

No need for the construction of a processing plant, just mine OUR Uranium, send it overseas for enrichment and assembly into the Rod assemblies, 5 stages of enrichment to around 3 to 5%, and then Import the rods back to Australia, all at enormous cost, when having our own enrichment facility capable to do all this into those rod assemblies would be a better long term option, and perhaps even a reprocessing facility so depleted rods of around 0.5% to 0.75% enrichment, around the same as the Uranium mined from the ground in the first place.

Then 11 years minimum to construct the plant, and right there, if every duck lines up first time, we are now into the mid 30′s before power begins to flow, provided we can import the right people to build the plant in the first place.

Keep in mind here, I’m only speaking of Gen 3/4 BWR’s or PWR’s, not CANDU, Thorium, or Pebble Beds, just existing technology.

Also, keep in mind, we’ll be needing more than one of them, perhaps 3 to start with, and then more later.

No, an ETS will not facilitate any move to Nuclear power at all. Nuclear power may arrive, and I hope it does, but not in any foreseeable future, and most definitely not because of any ETS.

All the current legislation is about is Wind and Solar.

So, when Doctor Smith blusters on about how his piece of paper magic wand legislation will make the Nukes suddenly pop up everywhere, be fully aware he knows nothing about electrical power generation, nor even bothers about the fast approaching blackouts, with no options for any solution.

All this information is very freely available at the largest database for electrical power on Planet Earth The U.S. Government’s Energy Information Administration (EIA), but if any of you go there to look for yourself, be fully aware that it’s not er, peer reviewed.

I do humbly apologise for taking up so much space with this, and I also apologise for re starting the Doctor Smith cut and paste saga at this Thread, but honest, I won’t bait him any more with replies. He can just talk among themselves.

2. Nuclear fission reactors can be used, and probably will be used, to generate future energy needs, if the political leaders have the courage to force nuclear industry to use the radioactive waste products to generate more energy instead of leaving the waste for other countries or future generations to dispose.

I agree regarding perceptions as a result of fukishima. I said the same thing to my wife. Of course any debate on nuclear must be open and clear about the probability and the consequences of risks eventuating.

As for crashing an economy to try and bias people towards anything, is utter hubris imo. People will kick back more if they’re being railroaded.

There are 3 days apparently to comment on the CO2 tax. Does anyone out there have a suggestion for submission content? I don’t have the time to read 1000 pages of legislation nor am I a lawyer anyway. I was particularly interested in a submission that opposed it being loaded with a “poison pill” that made it hard to unravel.

Interesting that the Cut and Paste Team/person from The Australian included this little tidbit…..Wonder where they get their climate info….?

American Physical Society, November 2007:

THE evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

Make that two. 1973 Nobel prize winner for physics Ivar Giaever emails the APS on September 13:

I DID not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS] statement [on global warming] … In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the earth for a year?) is that the temperature has changed from -288.0 to -288.8 Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have improved in this ‘warming’ period.

Whether people accept AGW or not, I think most are aware of the huge increase in baseload demand we’ll see over the next few decades. Achieving that without nukes will be rough

Isn’t that exactly what the people on this site are posting about, in stark contrast to the government line that all will be rosy with purely wind and solar? And yet you make disparaging comments about the age of those of us who post here, and how “narrow minded” and provinicial you feel we are. You are obviously young and reasonably educated, but you would do better to open your mind to what some here, who have been around alot longer than you, have to say. You might actually learn something. Perhaps all you have been spoon fed is not exactly gospel truth, and fossil fuels may not be the evil that they are painted to be by the Green catastrophists.

Too good the pass up -even if off topic. Sorry!.
Father and daughter exchange of words and wisdom.

A young woman was about to finish her first year of university. Like so many
others her age, she considered herself to be Labour Party minded, and she
was very much in favour of higher taxes to support her education and for
more government programs – in other words, the redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch blue-ribbon
Conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she
had attended and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her
father had for years harboured a selfish desire to keep what he thought
should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on
the rich and the need for more government programs.

The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors must be the
truth, and she indicated so to her father.. He responded by asking how she
was doing at university.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 90% average, and
let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a
very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no
time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even have
time for a boyfriend, and didn’t really have many university friends because
she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend Audrey doing?” She
replied, “Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she
never studies and she barely has a 50% average. She is so popular on campus;
university for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties, and
lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung
over.”

Her wise father asked his daughter, “Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office
and ask him to deduct 20% off your average and give it to your friend who
only has 50%. That way you will both have a 70% average, it would be fair
and you would both be equal.”

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired
back, “That’s a crazy idea; how would that be fair! I’ve worked really hard
for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey
has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my
tail off!”

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Welcome to the
Conservative side of the fence.”

If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between Conservative
and Labour/Greens, I’m all ears.
If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great
test!

If a Conservative supporter doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
If a Labour/Green doesn’t like guns, they want all guns outlawed.

If a Conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.
If a Labour/Green is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for
everyone.

If a Conservative is gay, he quietly leads his life.
If a Labour/Green is gay, he demands legislated respect.

If a Conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his
situation.
A Labour/Green wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a Conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Labour/Greens demand that those they don’t like should be banned.

If a Conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A Labour/Green non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
(Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)

If a Conservative reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends can have a
good laugh.
A Labour/Green will delete it because he’s “offended.”

Is this NASA admitting that the sun can heat the atmosphere, quote: “NASA spokeswoman Beth Dickey confirmed with SPACE.com earlier today that the reason UARS is expected to fall early in its re-entry window is because of the sharp uptick in solar activity. Solar effects from the sun can create an extra drag on satellites in space because they can heat the Earth’s atmosphere, causing it to expand, agency officials have said.”

So solar activity can heat the atmosphere – no more CO2 induced dangerous climate change then?

You, sir, are an excellent commenter. And I mean “sir” with respect not contempt.

You have noted in your manner my own observation that the same people protesting nuclear today will still be protesting nuclear then. No ETS is going to make them “see the light” or magically accept that it must happen.

To compound the issue, all of the things the “carbon price” is supposed to “cure” will make the cost of those plants even more expensive (on top of everything you listed) because it will still require the use of fossil fuels to construct them. Only by then fueling the cranes, trucks, etc. will be even more expensive (along with the shipping of materials, etc.) than it is today.

Adam’s musing on how an ETS will make nuclear viable are what they are, just another lie on top of a lie.

Australian Constitution – Section 51 – Legislative powers of the Parliament.
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:-
…
(xxxi.) The acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws
…

Is it just me or is the Constitution simply stating that the Parliament “shall have the power to make laws…with respect to…the acquisition of property on just terms”. I simply cannot see that this implies any obligation to compensate on “just terms”.

“…..The official opening ceremony was conducted by the Dalai Lama and centered around a Viking long-ship that was constructed to celebrate the summit and sailed to Rio from Norway. The ship was appropriately named Gaia. A huge mural of a beauiful woman holding the earth within her hands adorned the entrance to the summit. Al Gore lead the US delegation where he was joined by 110 Heads of State, and representatives of more than 800 NGO’s.

Maurice Strong, Club of Rome member, devout Bahai, founder and first Secretary General of UNEP, has been the driving force behind the birth and imposition of Agenda 21. While he chaired the Earth Summit, outside his wife Hanne and 300 followers called the Wisdom-Keepers, continuously beat drums, chanted prayers to Gaia, and trended scared flames in order to “establish and hold the energy field” for the duration of the summit. You can view actual footage of these ceremonies on YouTube. During the opening speech Maurice Strong made the following statements:

“The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.” – Link

“It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.” – Link

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable. A shift is necessary which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations.” – Link

Among other things, the agenda called for a Global Biodiversity Assessment of the State of the Earth. Prepared by the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP), this 1140 page document armed UN leaders with the “ecological basis, and moral authority” they needed to validate their global management system. The GBA concludes on page 863 that “the root causes of the loss of biodiversity are embedded in the way societies use resources. This world view is characteristic of large scale societies, heavily dependent on resources brought from considerable distances. It is a world view that is characterized by the denial of sacred attributes in nature, a characteristic that became firmly established about 2000 years ago with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious traditions. Eastern cultures with religious traditions such as Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism did not depart as drastically from the perspective of humans as members of a community of beings including other living and non-living elements.” In other words Christians and Moslems are to blame for the sorry state of the world because their religions do not involve worshipping “sacred nature.”

The statue of ‘Liberty’ in New York harbour in my opinion represents the pagan god Amarka which can also be written as Omorka.

Am = mother and Arka = earth – Mother of the Earth.

Erica means ruler of all, so America means the Mother who rules over all,alias Gaia.

But given the short time for submissions and the relatively short time before Parliament I doubt many MPs will read through the approx. 1000 pages and if they do will they digest the fine detail?
So perhaps the you should send your local MP’s a letter detailing the basic issues raised by Prof.Egas –ie. outling fundamental undemocratic issues that arise from the property right matter ( also that all other Governments are avoiding it)etc. Maybe one of the lawyers posting here could offer to draft something for others to copy.
I suppose what I am suggesting is hit the MPs with the basic legal/democracy issues, the economics of sending billions off shore etc without getting into the science , energy , micro economics issues. Keep it simple with 3 or 4 key facts.

For the more legally minded of us,I’d like to know just how legal the decision to “repeal-proof” the carbon tax without massive compensation is,as this is the first tax to my knowledge that has had such restrictions placed into the legistation.

Submission Idea
If the Carbon Tax ETS or any other Legislation based on Buying Permits from Foreign Entitys,
Is then Enacted into Law before Australia has an
ability to produce such Permits .
The Permit producing Industries would have to be
up and running , To produce such Permits.
Australia then has the ability to buy its own Permits.
With out this.
Would it not be an act of Treason.
Given that Foreign Entitys could deny access
to permits, Australia would then be vulnerable.
Compromising National Security.

19 Sept: Herald Sun: AAP: Climate debate hitting new lows – scientist
AUSTRALIA’S chief scientist says climate change debate continues to hit new lows as the government’s contentious carbon pricing scheme fuels the fire for political division.
Professor Ian Chubb wants politicians to consider compelling evidence that human activity has adversely affected the climate through global warming.
He says while it’s important people have different views about climate science, there are concerns about the level of threats sent to those working in the field.
“Every time I think it’s reached a low, we then go on and reach a new low,” Prof Chubb has told ABC Television’s Four Corners Program…
“I would urge politicians to look at all the evidence and to wonder why it might be that something like 32 national academies of science all around the world are all saying that it’s very likely that human activity has adversely affected our climate through global warming.”…
Professor Will Steffen from the Australian National University’s Climate Change Institute says some were direct threats of violence, while others were “simply very nasty emails with veiled threats in them that what might happen to us in a very general way”.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard says the plunge in debate should be blamed on the Opposition’s preparedness to “abuse scientists”.
She says some Tea Party-type tactics being used in the US have been imported to Australia…
But Mr Abbott says there is a “lack of civility” on both sides of the issue.
He says it’s understandable why people feel ripped off.
“You’ve got a prime minister who says one thing before the election, does the opposite after the election,” he said.http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/climate-debate-hitting-new-lows-scientist/story-e6frf7jx-1226140422434

Mark, the section cannot be read down which means that if the Feds bring in any law such as the Carbon tax laws which allows them to encroach on ownership they are bound to include in the confiscatory parts Just Terms provisions.

Isn’t that exactly what the people on this site are posting about, in stark contrast to the government line that all will be rosy with purely wind and solar?

I don’t think anyone in the gov’t is suggesting that.

And yet you make disparaging comments about the age of those of us who post here, and how “narrow minded” and provinicial you feel we are.

I made fun of Mv’s age after he made fun of mine, it was just banter. I don’t think I’ve implied anyone was provincial. The only people who are narrow minded on this site are those who think that supporting a given position renders you an imbecile. I’ve seen such comments from both parties.

You are obviously young and reasonably educated, but you would do better to open your mind to what some here, who have been around alot longer than you, have to say. You might actually learn something.

I’ve learned a lot here, from some very capable minds on both sides.

Perhaps all you have been spoon fed is not exactly gospel truth, and fossil fuels may not be the evil that they are painted to be by the Green catastrophists.

Apart from a couple ‘intimate’ moments, the last thing I was spoon-fed was mashed banana and yoghurt. Fossil fuels aren’t evil, they’re necessary. That said, I think we should take steps to start reducing the size of their contribution to the energy sector. Most of my reasons for doing so aren’t CAGW related.

the pollies will only read the really funny (ie wierd) submissions, and then only if they are also really short. To get your point across, just send a brief message making a single point- eg collapse of public faith in pollies or poison pill unethical or uncertainties in science or whatever you are most comfortable with enunciating.

Multi-page detailed submissions will be read by Committee support staff and summarised in bulk. Bulk is important.

Let them know also that you do not wish to appear in person to expand on your submission (they will like that) or make the point that you would like to appear in person if that is your preference.

And now for something completely different- can someone with contacts through to Roo Murdoch suggest that he register his Australian media interests as a political party. No responsibility then to tell the truth and instant authority to publish any crap he may wish, just like the other parties do. Let’s see the Greens try to censor a registered political party!

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired
back, “That’s a crazy idea; how would that be fair! I’ve worked really hard
for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey
has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my
tail off!”
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Welcome to the
Conservative side of the fence.”

What about her friend Jenny, who got 50% because she had to work to put herself through uni and help support her family or her friend Leith who got 50% because he suffers from chronic depression?

If a Conservative supporter doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
If a Labour/Green doesn’t like guns, they want all guns outlawed.

Some individual rights (non-farmer owning a gun) might not be worth the cost (death rate from firearms).

If a Conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.
If a Labour/Green is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

That would be atypical.

If a Conservative is gay, he quietly leads his life.
If a Labour/Green is gay, he demands legislated respect.

Legislated equivalence is a bad thing?

If a Conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his
situation.
A Labour/Green wonders who is going to take care of him.

There are more lefties on the dole huh?

If a Conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Labour/Greens demand that those they don’t like should be banned.

Or maybe referred to the AMCA.

If a Conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A Labour/Green non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
(Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)

There is no foreign religion.

If a Conservative reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends can have a
good laugh.
A Labour/Green will delete it because he’s “offended.”

There could be a case for arguing that the section is worded this way precisely to protect the Commonwealth (not to mention the people) from spurious claims.. The Parliament “shall” make laws, but then again, ithe parliament might not. History is replete with examples of individuals being “dudded” by their govenments. Why should this be any different?

There is also the aspect of a government indebting the people in perpetuity. Apart from being repugnant, I just don’t believe it’s feasible. This really is Medieval stuff.

To Blimey @ 81
Thanks for the link. I found the site to be of no value whatsoever. If the tone of the site is equivalent to what the (deliberately anonymous) site author was posting here at JoNova i’m not surprised that they were banned as a troll.
Cheers.
NicG.

Submission Idea
If the Carbon Tax ETS or any other Legislation based on Buying Permits from Foreign Entitys,
Is then Enacted into Law before Australia has an
ability to produce such Permits .
The Permit producing Industries would have to be
up and running , To produce such Permits.
Australia then has the ability to buy its own Permits.
With out this.
Would it not be an act of Treason.
Given that Foreign Entitys could deny access
to permits, Australia would then be vulnerable.
Compromising National Security.

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that “global warming is occurring.”

For any of you who ‘may’ just be swayed by Doctor Smith’s sanguine belief that there will be a Nuclear power future for Australia, take everything he says about that with a grain dose of salt.

Of course Australia will end up using nuclear when wind and solar are unable to provide enough power at a low enough cost.

Nobody of any political persuasion is even daring to mention nuclear power as a future option. The current ‘Clean Energy Future’ means Wind and Solar only.

And this is wrong Tony. In fact, it may have to be you and me that band together to push the nuclear agenda for the betterment of our nation.

He claims his piece of paper will facilitate this move to Nuclear power by making coal fired power more expensive, thus able to compete with Nuclear power.

Yes, the carbon price (I assume that’s what you mean by “piece of paper”) will ultimately facilitate a transition to nuclear as nuclear will become cheaper than fossil fuels and renewables. The merits of nuclear power will become undeniable thanks to the carbon price. In fact I think after the ETS is through, the next big challenge is developing a regulatory framework for nuclear. I strongly hope the Liberals and Labor can work together on that.

That may even be true, (in his mind well) and while this may seem like a concession, be very aware it is not, and it needs very careful explanation. You see, Doctor Smith knows politics, but he is clueless when it comes to electrical power generation, as he has shown so graphically over the last week.

I know something that you don’t know. I know that fossil fuels are cheaper than nuclear. It is the carbon price that makes nuclear cheaper than fossil fuels.

Since its inception Nuclear power generation of electricity has not only been the cheapest method of generating large scale electricity, it is in fact just over half as expensive as the next nearest option, coal fired power.

I presented to you a reference to peer reviewed research that pointed out that this is wrong. The research showed that nuclear is slightly more expensive than the most efficient methods of coal power generation, but it becomes cheaper once even a low carbon price is introduced.

You have not provided any references that dispute that claim. Simply asserting things is not good enough.

There are sites around that actually quote NEW nuclear plants as being more expensive than any other form of power generation, and the up front construction is in fact considerably more expensive.

I have not made this claim. Nuclear is slightly more expensive than the most efficient methods of coal generation. It is significantly more expensive than less efficient methods of coal generation because less efficient methods are cheaper.

However, when taken over the life of the plant, that electricity is in fact considerably cheaper than any other form of generation, and again, this needs careful explanation.

You have not provided any references for this claim.

Those sites consistently quote best case scenarios for the options they favour, Wind and Solar, and at the same time quote worst case scenarios for everything else, with special consideration for coal fired power, making it expensive by including any ETS implications, and also adding on CCS, a dream that will never be realised on the scale required.

This is not the disagreement that we had on the previous thread. Our disagreement was based around your assertion that nuclear is cheaper than all methods of fossil fuel generation.

When those ‘green oriented’, (hence anti nuclear) sites do their calculations, the life span they quote is for the original licensing period of 40 years. Those plants, being of robust nature can be further licensed out for periods of 20 years. However, only that original 40 years is taken into account, and with that huge up front construction cost, then the lifetime cost is always high, in fact slightly higher than new technology coal with everything, which also uses only that 40 year life license, a period that also can be extended.

This is all completely irrelevant. I know you have called me a “left wing extremist”, but I actually support nuclear power. Our discussion was about the costs of nuclear. I have referenced research that shows is it is the cheapest baseload power source once a low carbon price is introduced. You have made the erroneous assertion that nuclear is the cheapest generation source without a carbon price. This is wrong.

When it comes to Wind and Solar, they have a life span, at the absolute best case scenario of only 25 years, something that cannot be extended, because they are literally finished by that time.

Irrelevant to our disagreement.

So, that original licensing period of 40 years for Nuclear plants.

Nearly all Nuclear plants in the U.S. are more than 40 years old, some many more than that. Nearly all of them have had their license extended to 60 years, and most have said that they will be seeking extension for a further period of 20 years, because plants of this nature can actually operate for that 80 years, and more feasibly.

Irrelevant to our disagreement.

Now here’s another known fact. Even though those Nuclear plants make up just less than 10% of total U.S. capacity, they in fact provide a tick over 22% of the total consumed power in the U.S. They do this at a Capacity factor of 90/91%, and in the 2 peak seasons, that CF is up around 95%.

Keep in mind that no new plants have been constructed since the 70′s barring the last opened in 1996, those plants have consistently been increasing the power they provide for the U.S. increasing by between 2 and 5% each year, with no new plants.

This has been achieved by upgrades to the generators mostly, because this actually can be done with these types of plants, hence the increase in power supplied to consumers.

However, there is a worrying thing happening now.

New planned Nuclear plants are increasing in cost at the Construction end of the plan. The worrying part now is that because they have been out of construction for so long, there is conjecture that there may not be any construction entities with the expertise to construct any of the new plants, even in the U.S.

Construction time, post 2016 is expected to blow out from the current expected 7 years to more than 11 years.

Irrelevant to our disagreement.

So then, let’s now place this in the context of Doctor Smith’s sanguine Nuclear future for Australia.

FINALLY!

As he so eloquently says, The Greens will control the Senate until 2017, so any discussion cannot even start until then. Let’s pretend everything lines up and the public immediately accepts Nuclear power. Yeah right!

What a load of crap! We will only get nuclear when Labor and Liberal agree. When those two parties agree on an issue they can pass anything through the parliament, and all the other parties (including the lap dog Nationals) become irrelevant.

The legislation has to be proposed, put before the public at an election, 2020, and then approved through both Houses.

What a load of nonsense! The Parliament is sovereign, it can pass whatever legislation it likes (within constitutional constraints). There doesn’t need to be an election on this issue.

Then remember, rush rush rush, we can import the assemblies by Sea. Yeah right! Get that approved.

Well in the past I have advocated that Australia should have the capability of making nuclear reactor vessels here. There’s only two places in the world where they can be made.

No need for the construction of a processing plant, just mine OUR Uranium, send it overseas for enrichment and assembly into the Rod assemblies, 5 stages of enrichment to around 3 to 5%, and then Import the rods back to Australia, all at enormous cost,

What misleading nonsense! Fuel costs are one of the smallest costs associated with running a nuclear power plant. Australia could easily sign a deal for fuel rods from a country that we export uranium to.

when having our own enrichment facility capable to do all this into those rod assemblies would be a better long term option, and perhaps even a reprocessing facility so depleted rods of around 0.5% to 0.75% enrichment, around the same as the Uranium mined from the ground in the first place.

Well sure, but not having an enrichment facility isn’t an insurmountable problem.

Then 11 years minimum to construct the plant, and right there, if every duck lines up first time, we are now into the mid 30′s before power begins to flow, provided we can import the right people to build the plant in the first place.

You are completely underrating the ingenuity of the Australian people. We could have a reactor operating by 2020 if we wanted to.

Also, keep in mind, we’ll be needing more than one of them, perhaps 3 to start with, and then more later.

What we should do is work on 1 plant capable of housing two reactors. Get one reactor going in say 10 years or so, with plans to build the second reactor in the following 5 years or so.

No, an ETS will not facilitate any move to Nuclear power at all. Nuclear power may arrive, and I hope it does, but not in any foreseeable future, and most definitely not because of any ETS.

You haven’t even begun to prove this claim!

The ETS WILL encourage the adoption of nuclear power for the following reasons:
1) Even a low carbon price (such as the $23 per tonne) starting price makes nuclear the lowest cost PROVEN baseload electricity generation technology
2) It will speed up the adoption of wind and solar, which will speed up the realisiation amongst policy makers that those sources are hideously expensive in baseload configurations. These people, including politicians, will realise that power costs will go through the roof if all we do is transition to gas, wind and solar. This pressure alone will make nuclear more and more attractive, which will speed up its adoption.

Without a carbon price we will just keep using inefficient coal generation methods because THEY ARE CHEAPER THAN NUCLEAR and Tony hasn’t provided any evidence that explains how this isn’t the case.

All the current legislation is about is Wind and Solar.

Which is WRONG. But all the legislation needs is a simple amendment to say that nuclear counts as a clean energy source, and thus should be eligible for SOME of the funding derived from the sale of pollution permits.

So, when Doctor Smith blusters on about how his piece of paper magic wand legislation will make the Nukes suddenly pop up everywhere, be fully aware he knows nothing about electrical power generation, nor even bothers about the fast approaching blackouts, with no options for any solution.

I NEVER CLAIMED that nukes will suddenly pop up everywhere. I just claimed that nuclear becomes more attractive as even a low carbon price makes it the cheapest source of baseload electricity.

Now you say that their will be blackouts, well my response is THIS WILL MAKE NUCLEAR MORE ATTRACTIVE especially as governments become scared that they will be turfed out because of people pissed of unreliable power sources like wind.

All this information is very freely available at the largest database for electrical power on Planet Earth The U.S. Government’s Energy Information Administration (EIA), but if any of you go there to look for yourself, be fully aware that it’s not er, peer reviewed.

Show me ONE article from that source that shows that nuclear is cheaper than coal without a carbon price.

I do humbly apologise for taking up so much space with this, and I also apologise for re starting the Doctor Smith cut and paste saga at this Thread, but honest, I won’t bait him any more with replies. He can just talk among themselves.

You still haven’t explained how the peer reviewed research that I referenced is wrong.

You have not explained your assertion that nuclear is cheaper than fossil fuels.

was an undergrad talk but there were pertinent questions that were not responded to particularly well. I left it to the undergrads as it was their course and their home ground and not my place to grandstand. Nor would would it have been particularly productive.

Of course Australia will end up using nuclear when wind and solar are unable to provide enough power at a low enough cost.

When do you think this will occur because I’ve been waiting for 58 years and will probably dead before I see a Nucelar power plant in this Country. I might also point out that this dim witted government in the meanwhile will waste around $3.2b every year it is delayed.

I’s a shame to think we can’t have these plants built right now and we don’t need a Carbon Tax to do it!

TonyfromOz. I know you will be tempted to start again. You have done great service, but we will understand if you don’t want to go round that loop one more time. We have your postings here and on PA Pundits, an invaluable resource. Your last extensive text came back decorated with graffitti like this:

Now you say that their will be blackouts, well my response is THIS WILL MAKE NUCLEAR MORE ATTRACTIVE

And this:

Of course Australia will end up using nuclear when wind and solar are unable to provide enough power at a low enough cost.

Dear me! This is the article THAT I LINKED TO that shows you need a low carbon price to make nuclear relatively cheaper than all other baseload alternatives. The most efficient coal stations using pulverised coal are slightly cheaper than nuclear without a carbon price, but immediately become more expensive with even a low carbon price, which the ETS will create on July 1 next year.

This study DOES NOT include regular inefficient coal power stations or gas power stations, because they are clearly cheaper than nuclear without a carbon price.

Tony’s claim is that nuclear is cheaper than all alternatives without a carbon price, which is wrong.

But how will our asian neighbours view this? The same way that the world viewed Iran’s efforts to create energy? (Energy creation as a cover for nuclear armaments, maybe).

What an absurd thing to write. The reason Iran is always in the shit over its nuclear program is that they are clearly using it to develop nuclear weapons.

The Nuclear-Non Proliferation treaty is EXPLICITLY based on the principle that all nations have an inaliable right to exploit nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes, such as medicine, energy generation, and other research.

Our Asian neighbours would accept the right Australia has to exploit nuclear technologies for these purposes, as is our right. Of course Australia would have to make our nuclear facilities accessible to IAEA inspectors. But that is par for the course of operating nuclear reactors and other nuclear facilities.

Will the tectonic plates agree with corporates that it will be “safe as houses”?

What on earth are you talking about? Australia is perhaps the most geological stable continent on the Earth.

There is a difference between weather and climate, and i dont know of anyone who really believes or asserts that solar activity doesn’t affect our climate to some extent. As far as it being the main driver for the observed warming trend in the troposphere, nup.

Interesting to refer to the graphics on page 4 of “The Skeptics Handbook”. The ones of the modeled and actual observed temperature anomaly distributions, The cooling trend in the stratosphere is pretty evident in both, particularly the second.

Not that temps wont jump up and down year on year, and anyway, as far as satellites are concerned its the exosphere that is the issue.

There is a petition that you can sign on ‘Barnaby is Right’ blog. You have to use
your own name, location etc. No avatars. They are threatening litigation against the government like what was used with the Malaysian solution, but against carbon taxing.

I understand a carbon Tax will make it cheaper if introduced but you haven’t answered the real question which was when do you think it is likely that we will get a Nuke?

I’m not sure. We could have our first reactor operating by 2020 if we wanted to.

The mere fact the government is going to toss $3.2b annualy into the void is just a distraction. How many plants could we build with $3.2b?

I don’t know where that figure comes from. And you must consider that the government will be saving tax payers a lot of money by using a carbon price as its mechanism for reducing carbon emissions. The Coalition’s policy could cost as much as $11 billion a year, every year, which is about $1200 a year, every year for every household in the country.

shows you need a low carbon price to make nuclear relatively cheaper than all other baseload alternatives.

So the aim of the ETS/Carbon Tax is to artificially deflate the cost of nuclear (or solar or wind) power through subsidy?

Duh?

Subsidising something to make it ‘cheaper’ doesn’t make the thing less expensive, it just means the cost is being supported indirectly. You could call this ‘Robbing Peter to pay Paul’ or maybe ‘taking money from your right hand pocket with your left hand’.

Well you’ll have to forgive me for being perverse but I like my costs up front and obvious!

“So the aim of the ETS/Carbon Tax is to artificially deflate the cost of nuclear (or solar or wind) power through subsidy?”

I believe its more in the nature of a price signal being sent into the market. Govts are allowed to do that if they determine its in the national interest, can pass it through the parliament elected by the people, and its likely more efficient than a direct subsidy.

As far as i know the only ones talking direct subsidy on a large scale are the Coalition with their socialist, command economy, Direct Inaction plan.

So the aim of the ETS/Carbon Tax is to artificially deflate the cost of nuclear (or solar or wind) power through subsidy?

No, that will just be an effect because it will make carbon intensive methods of energy generation relatively more expensive than low and no intensive methods.

Subsidising something to make it ‘cheaper’ doesn’t make the thing less expensive, it just means the cost is being supported indirectly.

A price on carbon isn’t a subsidy. It is a financial disincentive.

You could call this ‘Robbing Peter to pay Paul’ or maybe ‘taking money from your right hand pocket with your left hand’.

I don’t see what your point is. You could call anything anything but it doesn’t make it so.

Well you’ll have to forgive me for being perverse but I like my costs up front and obvious!

If this is the case, you should support the ETS. The cost to put 1 tonne of CO2 equivalent into the air on July 1st, 2012 will be $23. That is clear and upfront and provides certainty for business.

The alternate policy is the Coalition’s direct action program which proposes that we can cut emissions by the same amount for ‘free’. But of course ‘free’ actually means that some as yet undetermined amount of your income taxes will be handed over to businesses in the hope that they will reduce their emissions.

Where is the transparency in that? The Government’s policy which sets out the price for the first three years, and then goes to a market price which will be clearly available for anyone to see is “up front and obvious”.

So does this have anything to do with efficiency and cost effectiveness or just low carbon emissions?

Well of course it has something to do with efficiency, because one thing the carbon price will do is encourage companies with assets that emit carbon emissions to become more efficient.

If the cost associated with increasing efficiency by a certain amount are lower than the cost of the permits that would be saved by the increased efficiency, then it makes sense to invest in the efficiency measures rather than spending money on a greater amount of permits.

But the carbon price leaves these sorts of trade offs up to each business to work out. The alternative Direct Action policy is based around the socialistic idea that Governments should just make these decisions on the behalf of businesses, i.e. they should mandate changes.

But of course this will just waste a heap of money because politicians and bureaucrats simply can’t figure out what the best methods of abatement are more effectively than the market.

Well of course it has something to do with efficiency, because one thing the carbon price will do is encourage companies with assets that emit carbon emissions to become more efficient.

If the cost associated with increasing efficiency by a certain amount are lower than the cost of the permits that would be saved by the increased efficiency, then it makes sense to invest in the efficiency measures rather than spending money on a greater amount of permits.

Again, I think you’ve missed my point. The efficiencies and cost effectiveness should be in power generation (thereby potentially reducing the cost to the customer) not in CO2 reduction (which, through the purchase of Carbon Credits or infrastructure expenses, results in an increased cost to the customer as this just builds in ‘over-heads’ and performs no other useful function).

But the carbon price leaves these sorts of trade offs up to each business to work out. The alternative Direct Action policy is based around the socialistic idea that Governments should just make these decisions on the behalf of businesses, i.e. they should mandate changes.

But of course this will just waste a heap of money because politicians and bureaucrats simply can’t figure out what the best methods of abatement are more effectively than the market.

I think we all understand that business knows about trade-off’s and they know where the money is.

And, as for what politicians and bureaucrats can or cannot figure out… the phrase that includes ‘backside’ ‘find’ ‘both hands’ and ‘couldn’t’ springs to mind. Which is probably why the western world is currently in the state its in.

Has somebody seen Stephen Wilde’s theory?http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8361
His idea that the “temperature of the Earth” is determined in the oceans seems logical to me.
According to it the sunrays go deep into the ocean, warming it up (>100m). The energy balance is then achieved through enthalpy only at the surface. This energy balance would define the average temperature of the oceans and these having a much higher heat capacity are in fact defining the average of the temperature of the Earth.
Has this been discussed/reviewed in any blogs? Can somebody point me to such?
In all analyses that define the average temperature – and the “part” due to greenhouse – the oceans are missing (or used only to redistribute warmth) which may be an essential flaw.
If the oceans are “guilty” for some of the difference to the ideal black body, then greenhouse gases may play a much smaller role?

1. If you genuinely believe nuclear is the way to go and if you think practically on how it can be achieved you and Tony should be agreeing with each other. Tony has shown us a couple of months ago that by installing modern technology in coalfired power stations CO2 emissions can be reduced by far more than the 5% current target ( his figures were 13% ).
If the aim is to convert to nuclear then we know it cannot be done “over night” but there would have to be a phasing in of nuclear and a phasing out of coal over reasonably long time period. Don’t forget that these coal stations already have long term contracts in place.If the “worst” coalfired power stations were converted immediately while planning for the nuclear plants took place you would both be happy. No need for a carbon tax / ETS.

2. Assuming current plans continue on course you have repeatedly said that no future Govt. will repeal the Legislation because the compensation costs will to high. Latest figure = $10 bill.
The way I see it these type of costs on the economy will occur anyway. If the system works and emissions reduce then income from the scheme reduces overtime. But the compensation payments are locked in place ( unless income tax reductions are reversed). So future Governments are going to have a cost either way. One will be overtime ( a long time ) the other a shorter time. So your argument does not stack up.

Adam Smith:
September 20th, 2011 at 12:29 am
“Euromoney finance ministers of the year award winners by political party:”

I’m European; we have many awards; especially many that the guys in the (collapsing) renewables industries give each other; I didn’t hear of that one and I’m sure it’s the usual cronieism. We even give Paul Ehrlich awards when we invite him to speak at some breweries sustainability shindig.

It looks like I missed the Adams family show last night. It was on too late for me.

I’m glad Tim@98 has raised the very relevant question as to how our pacific neighbors would react to a nuclear programme in australia.

This in and of itself will delay or completely scuttle the adams family plan for railroaded nuclear in Australia. Most of our neighbours harbour very well founded concerns on anything nuclear. And yes, NZ does have some very exagerated views on the topic as well, it must be conceeded.

Exagerated or not, a fast tracked nuclear programme is not something any sane human should advocate. There are far too many examples of what happens when nuclear plants are rushed through.

To try and create an artificial accelerator like the carbon tax is utterly stupid. It will crash our current means of energy production when we have no viable or cleaner alternative. It won’t work, and will only work to butcher a real debate on the matter for longer. Much in the same way the politics has butchered any real debate in this country in AGW.

Much in the same way that Japan is in a bind with nuclear. I can’t see how such a densely populated country with the energy demands it has would have any other alternative to nuclear power. It would be utterly nuts for them to say introduce a nuclear tax to make nuclear less viable without having a viable alternative available.

Adam Smith:
September 19th, 2011 at 11:55 pm
“And you must consider that the government will be saving tax payers a lot of money by using a carbon price as its mechanism for reducing carbon emissions.”

…because the companies will surely not recoup the cost from their consumers/workers/shareholders, right?

The Panel will comprise 21 representatives from government, the private sector and civil society, and will be co-chaired by Finland’s President Tarja Halonen and South African President Jacob Zuma. In a press conference held at UN Headquarters in New York, US, Ban stressed the need to “promote low carbon growth and strengthen our resilience to the impacts of climate change.” He added that “we need a blueprint for a more liveable, prosperous, and sustainable future for all.” He informed that the Panel will report by the end of 2011, to feed into key intergovernmental processes, including the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) that will take place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 2012, and the annual conferences of the UNFCCC. Janos Pasztor will head the Panel’s secretariat.

Panel members include: Gro Harlem Brundtland, former Prime Minister of Norway; Han Seung-soo, former Prime Minister of the Republic of Korea; Yukio Hatoyama, former Prime Minister of Japan; Luisa Dias Diogo, former Prime Minister of Mozambique; and Kevin Rudd, former Prime Minister of Australia; David Thompson, Prime Minister of Barbados; Sheikh Abdallah Bin Zayid Al Nahayan, United Arab Emirates Foreign Minister; Ali Babacan, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister; and Micheline Calmy-Rey, Foreign Minister of Switzerland; Alexander Bedritsky, Aide to the Russian President on climate change; Hajiya Amina Az-Zubair, Adviser for the Nigerian President on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); Zheng Guogang, Director of the China Meteorological Administration; Jim Balsillie, Chair of the Board of the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI); Susan E. Rice, US Permanent Representative to the UN; Jairam Ramesh, environment minister of India; Julia Carabias, former Secretary of the environment of Mexico; and Cristina Narbona Ruiz, former environment minister of Spain; and Connie Hedegaard, EU Commissioner for Climate Change

Adam, do you think the carbon price should be floated? Do you think companies should be given any free credits?

Ideally the ETS would immediately be starting with a floating price, because by definition that would enable the market to work out the cheapest price for itself.

I am not opposed to free permits for trade exposed industries. These free permits will ensure that the scheme doesn’t produce massive shocks. It is effectively a subsidy but it is left up for the business to decide if they simply use the permits or use them as an asset that they can invest to become more efficient (a lower emissions intensity) that will then reduce their future pollution liability, and thus need for permits.

Again, I think you’ve missed my point. The efficiencies and cost effectiveness should be in power generation (thereby potentially reducing the cost to the customer) not in CO2 reduction (which, through the purchase of Carbon Credits or infrastructure expenses, results in an increased cost to the customer as this just builds in ‘over-heads’ and performs no other useful function).

Emissions intensity IS a measure of energy efficiency, because it means maximusing the amount of energy generated for a certain amount of fuel used.

1. If you genuinely believe nuclear is the way to go and if you think practically on how it can be achieved you and Tony should be agreeing with each other. Tony has shown us a couple of months ago that by installing modern technology in coalfired power stations CO2 emissions can be reduced by far more than the 5% current target ( his figures were 13% ).

Well I haven’t seen these figures. But I have seen Tony’s repeated assertions on other threads that nuclear is cheaper than all other baseload sources, but this is only true with a low ($20 per tonne) price on carbon. Tony hasn’t been able to cite any research that says that is wrong.

If the aim is to convert to nuclear then we know it cannot be done “over night” but there would have to be a phasing in of nuclear and a phasing out of coal over reasonably long time period. Don’t forget that these coal stations already have long term contracts in place.

I have never claimed we can convert to nuclear “over night”. I propose that we should aim to have our first reactor running by 2020. It should be built on a plant designed to house two reactors. We should aim to have the second reactor operating by 2025.

I’m confused by this repeated assertion that power companies have “long term contracts”. For the eastern states, electricity generators sell power into the grid which is bought by retailers. The price changes by the hour, so retailers can buy power from different distributors at the cheapest price. Which enables them to maximise their profits.

If the “worst” coalfired power stations were converted immediately while planning for the nuclear plants took place you would both be happy. No need for a carbon tax / ETS.

But here’s the problem. Old coal power stations simply can’t be cost effectively retrofitted to become more efficient. Hazelwood and Loy Yang, two of the least efficient power stations in the developed world, were designed int he 1960s and opened in I think 1970. They are just too old and need to be shut down so that investment can be put into more efficient sources. The carbon price will help acheive that, because it will, for example, make nuclear the cheapest baseload power source.

2. Assuming current plans continue on course you have repeatedly said that no future Govt. will repeal the Legislation because the compensation costs will to high. Latest figure = $10 bill.

$10 billion is simply my estimate for shutting down the ETS in the space of one year. The longer you wait the more it would be.

That would be the fee for buying back all the permits that polluting companies have bought, which must happen because of the constitution’s clause on the government paying “just terms” for property that it compulsorily acquires from individuals or corporations.

The way I see it these type of costs on the economy will occur anyway. If the system works and emissions reduce then income from the scheme reduces overtime. But the compensation payments are locked in place ( unless income tax reductions are reversed). So future Governments are going to have a cost either way. One will be overtime ( a long time ) the other a shorter time. So your argument does not stack up.

No this is wrong because a market price on emissions will be the lowest price, it would be fair lower, at least by 50%, perhaps by 66% or more than the Direct Action policy which could cost as much as $11 billion a year straight out of tax payer’s wallets and purses.

The cost of permits will rise over time because the total pollution cap is progressively reduced. This means fewer permits may still raise greater revenue as they become more expensive and as pollution goes down.

I’m European; we have many awards; especially many that the guys in the (collapsing) renewables industries give each other; I didn’t hear of that one and I’m sure it’s the usual cronieism. We even give Paul Ehrlich awards when we invite him to speak at some breweries sustainability shindig.

Well actually Euromoney’s award is pretty prestigious. Australia is generally considered a risky place for European investment. But with Wayne Swan winning this award it is possible there will be positive flow on effects of increased European investment in the Australian economy, which already has faster growth, lower inflation, lower unemployment and lower debt than every developed country other than (from memory) South Korea.

I’m glad Tim@98 has raised the very relevant question as to how our pacific neighbors would react to a nuclear programme in australia.

This is absolute misleading nonsense. Australia is a proud signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The text of the NPT says this:

Article IV

1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

This in and of itself will delay or completely scuttle the adams family plan for railroaded nuclear in Australia. Most of our neighbours harbour very well founded concerns on anything nuclear. And yes, NZ does have some very exagerated views on the topic as well, it must be conceeded.

This is completely ridiculous. There is NOTHING stopping ANY country from peacefully using nuclear power the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty calls it “an inalienable right”.

Exagerated or not, a fast tracked nuclear programme is not something any sane human should advocate. There are far too many examples of what happens when nuclear plants are rushed through.

Bloody hell! Since when is 9 or 10 years “fast tracked”? Let’s all be thankful that you aren’t running the government, nothing would get done!

To try and create an artificial accelerator like the carbon tax is utterly stupid. It will crash our current means of energy production when we have no viable or cleaner alternative. It won’t work, and will only work to butcher a real debate on the matter for longer. Much in the same way the politics has butchered any real debate in this country in AGW.

We need a low carbon price to make nuclear cheaper than all other alternatives.

Much in the same way that Japan is in a bind with nuclear. I can’t see how such a densely populated country with the energy demands it has would have any other alternative to nuclear power. It would be utterly nuts for them to say introduce a nuclear tax to make nuclear less viable without having a viable alternative available.

Japan can’t function as a society or economy without nuclear power. The new PM knows that, hence he has been supportive of restarting their reactors when it is safe to do so. I don’t mean Fukushima, because those reactors were destroyed as soon as the Japanese government (corretly) demanded that they be flooded with sea water.

Smith group mind@100; you are such a liar; I introduced the Brooks paper before you and it does show that nuclear can be as cheap as coal WITHOUT a TAX as Figure 1 plainly shows:

WRONG! I introduced it on another thread. It is the evidence I showed to Tony to prove that is claim that nuclear is cheaper than all baseload sources without a carbon price is wrong.

That figure shows PULVERISED COAL, which is the most expensive form of coal! And if you read the article it says that PV coal is slightly cheaper than nuclear without a carbon price, but with a low carbon price it is more expensive!

I firmly believe that your advocacy for nuclear is a sham to disguise your support for the TAX and the AGW scam.

Well you would be wrong. I support the ETS and I support nuclear power. And I can see how the ETS will make nuclear more likely when solar and wind can’t supply enough power.

The energy solutions are obvious and are irrelevant to AGW and the TAX and have been canvassed here:

Completely wrong. We need a low carbon price to make nuclear cheaper than all methods of fossil fuel generation. If we don’t have a carbon price we will never get nuclear.

In the weird world of real science there are radiation issues in the mining and combustion of coal and if nuclear power is introduced there will at least be some offset there.

You are right that coal power stations release radiation because there is radioactive elements embedded in the coal. Add to that all the respiratory illnesses, which estimated to kill 200,000 people prematurely each year.

And then add to that all the people that die down coal mines, estimated to be something like 2500 people a year in China a lone (and that’s only the ones the government doesn’t cover up).

So it is clear that coal power kills more people every year than nuclear ever has including Chernobyl. There hasn’t been a single radiation related death from Fukushima but yes that may change over the next few years.

So nuclear is much safer than coal, so we should transition to nuclear which will be aided by the ETS.

There’s a petition at http://barnabyisright.com/ Seeking a High Court injunction/s to prevent the issuing/auctioning of carbon permits (Units), and also preventing the issue of household assistance (compensation), will serve to neutralise the “poison pills” that the government has included in their legislation until such time as the constitutionality of the legislation can be tested in Court. I encourage you to put your name to it.

The point is given these proximities of comparative costs nuclear does not need a carbon TAX. More generally a lot of beneficial projects get ahead without government support and David Stockwell explains that here:

No Mr Smith, I introduced the Brooks paper which shows nuclear cheaper then a variety of coal power types which are the only ones supported by AGW advocates.

I don’t care what you think you introduced.

THAT was the evidence that I presented to Tony on another thread that he refused to respond to.

And that paper demonstrates that the most efficient (and thus the most expensive) coal generation methods are SLIGHTLY cheaper than nuclear without a carbon price, and more expensive even on a low carbon price.

So they don’t support whatever it is you think your argument is. Less efficient fossil fuel generation methods are cheaper than nuclear without a carbon price.

This idea that subsidisation on a massive scale is necessary for nuclear or any worth-while idea is a furphy; even wiki notes the relative costs are similar although coal is marginally cheaper:

I have not advocated massive subsidisation of nuclear, but I would make it eligible for clean energy funding just as solar, wind and geothermal will be.

I do not advocate the government funding nuclear power stations. I propose a carbon price which even at a low level will make nuclear the cheapest baseload option, which is where PRIVATE SECTOR investment will go on its own given the right regulatory framework.

The point is given these proximities of comparative costs nuclear does not need a carbon TAX. More generally a lot of beneficial projects get ahead without government support and David Stockwell explains that here:

There’s a petition at http://barnabyisright.com/ Seeking a High Court injunction/s to prevent the issuing/auctioning of carbon permits (Units), and also preventing the issue of household assistance (compensation), will serve to neutralise the “poison pills” that the government has included in their legislation until such time as the constitutionality of the legislation can be tested in Court. I encourage you to put your name to it.

The High Court can’t pass judgements on legislation that hasn’t passed the parliament.

But they can,once it’s passed the parliament,like the so-called malaysian solution. Once the High Court made a ruling on it,that was the end of it.

The Malasysia solution wasn’t legislated. It was an administrative decision made by the Minister under existing powers of the Migration Act.

What the High Court ruled is that the Migration Act didn’t provide the Minister with the powers that he was advised he had.

The Clean Energy bills have been drafted in a way to limited the number of regulations, so things won’t be left for administrative decisions. They will be decisions of the parliament as laid out in the bills.

The Clean Energy bills have been drafted in a way to limited the number of regulations, so things won’t be left for administrative decisions. They will be decisions of the parliament as laid out in the bills

They also are the first bill that I know of that include massive compensation penalties for repealing them. You mind explaining just how these are sound decision by the government?

No, you are wrong Mr Smith; about nuclear cost and that nuclear cost is irrelevant; you, inadvertently no doubt, concede that when you say:

I have not advocated massive subsidisation of nuclear, but I would make it eligible for clean energy funding just as solar, wind and geothermal will be.

I mean if a computer said that you would reprogramme it; it has so many contradictions I would not know where to start but of primary relevance is your concession that renewables will be subsidised from the TAX; what is the point of that if nuclear is the answer and the renewables don’t work.

Yesterday i was visited by a couple of Jehovah witnessess now normally i would treat them with distain however these ladies seemed very polite so i “entertained” them. They handed me a phamphlet which bore the title of “Who is the most powerful person in the world” and they asked me for an answer to this question. I responded by stating “Barak Obama” soon to be usurped by “Hu Jintao”, apparently the correct answer was Jesus who’d a thought.

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
- Maurice Strong, opening speech at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit

The Green Economy – A Global Economic Suicide Pact

The global green movement places very little value on the modern industrial society that has produced huge improvements in economic prosperity, health care, human rights, education and standards of living. In fact, the green movement hates and fears western-style capitalism. To them, the loss of industrial civilisation is of no great consequence. In fact, it is one of the top priorities of the Global Green Agenda.

The green movement has been obsessed with capitalism, especially evil multi-national corporations, since its birth in the 1960s. Long before the advent of ‘global warming’, the primary objective of the movement was, and always has been, simply the destruction of energy production. They know that the life blood of the industrial society is energy, especially fossil fuels, and a significant reduction in energy availability will deal a fatal blow to Gaia’s greatest threat – modern human society. Primitive societies are admired for being sustainable and living in harmony with Gaia. Western capitalist nations are reviled as “destroyers of the earth” which must be subdued. They make no attempt to conceal this agenda:

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
- Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
- Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
- Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”
- David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
- Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
- Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

One of the first targets of green movement was the nuclear power industry. Even though nuclear energy offers enormous energy potential with no CO2 emissions they still revile it. They also fiercely oppose any proposals to build new hydro-electric dams based on perceived negative environmental effects. The same argument is used to oppose any proposals to develop new oil fields. They intend to starve the beast not feed it. The only sources of power that the environmental movement is willing to allow are wind and sunlight. Humans will just have to adapt to living with very low volumes of unreliable energy.

Of course the big prize has always been to find some way to control, or even eliminate, the use of fossil fuels. After all, it is fossil fuels that have allowed the human population to blossom from a mere one billion in 1850 to more than six billion today. A single barrel of oil contains 23,000 man-hours of energy. Hence the 20 million barrels that the USA consumes each day is equivalent to 15 billion additional human workers. Oil has empowered each American worker the equivalent of 45 ‘virtual slaves’. Globally it provides us with the equivalent daily energy of more than 70 billion human workers. Try pushing your car for a few miles to see just how much work oil does for us.

In 1850 more than 85% of people led lives of hard drudgery growing food, today less than 2% of people in western societies are employed in the agricultural sector. In 1850 most people never traveled beyond the next village, whereas we are free to roam the world and learn from other cultures. The average life expectancy in England in 1850 was 34, and infant mortality was nearly 30%. Now the average life expectancy is in excess of 70, and infant mortality is miniscule.

But the green movement looks back with great fondness to a simpler and gentler time. According to them without fossil fuels the world will be transformed into an Ecotopia. We would all live in small sustainable villages, surrounded by lush fields where happy peasants sang love-songs to Gaia as they gently tilled her soil. Without the unbridled power provided by fossil fuels we could no longer dominate the earth, shaping it according to our own will. Humans would learn to once again live humbly alongside all other living beings, and be reconciled with Mother Nature.

The fact that modern ‘industrial’ agriculture would collapse without fossil fuels, and as a result hundreds of millions would starve, seems to be of minor consequence. It’s just a bit of short-term pain for long-term gain. Ted Turner, who donated over a billion dollars to the United Nations specifically to fund the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) thinks that “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

Hence for the green movement Global Warming presents an opportunity to finally and completely destroy the voracious beast of capitalism. They are demanding the imposition of a massive reduction in global emissions of carbon dioxide accompanied by a freeze on such emissions at the sharply reduced level. This would immediately result in the elimination or radical reduction in the supply of all goods and services that depend on fossil fuel consumption. As Al Gore says it would be a “wrenching transformation of society.” Every aspect of daily life would be dramatically altered.

The much vaunted Stern Report called for a 25% reduction in global carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. Given the fact that the world population is expected to increase by third which means the 9 billion people would have to generate 25% less then 6 billion, or a per capita reduction of 50%. This would devastate the global economy and make the Great Depression look like a picnic.

The two leading Democratic Presidential Candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have both called for an 80% reduction by 2050. Factoring in population growth, this would require a reduction of more than 90%. You really have to wonder if they have thought deeply about the implications of this goal. It even makes the climate doom stories seem pleasant:

“According to the Department of Energy’s most recent data on greenhouse gas emissions, in 2006 the U.S. emitted 5.8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, or just under 20 tons per capita. An 80% reduction in these emissions from 1990 levels means that the U.S. cannot emit more than about one billion metric tons of CO2 in 2050. Were man-made carbon dioxide emissions in this country ever that low? The answer is probably yes – from historical energy data it is possible to estimate that the U.S. last emitted one billion metric tons around 1910. But in 1910, the U.S. had 92 million people, and per capita income, in current dollars, was about $6,000.

By the year 2050, the Census Bureau projects that our population will be around 420 million. This means per capita emissions will have to fall to about 2.5 tons in order to meet the goal of 80% reduction. It is likely that U.S. per capita emissions were never that low – even back in colonial days when the only fuel we burned was wood. The only nations in the world today that emit at this low level are all poor developing nations, such as Belize, Mauritius, Jordan, Haiti and Somalia. If that comparison seems unfair, consider that even the least-CO2 emitting industrialized nations do not come close to the 2050 target. France and Switzerland, compact nations that generate almost all of their electricity from nonfossil fuel sources (nuclear for France, hydro for Switzerland) emit about 6.5 metric tons of CO2 per capita.” – Link

And then we have dear old Al Gore. The Goracle has called for a reduction in global carbon dioxide emissions of 90% within 20 years! There is little chance that modern society could function with 25% less oil, just imagine the consequences of a 90% reduction. Cities would be deserted and slowly rot. Infrastructure could no longer be maintained. It would surely result in a massive die-off in the human population….

“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced — a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”
- UN Agenda 21

The figures given Tony are in the thread linked by Cohenite @ 126.
I wasn’t suggesting you said nuclear could installed “over night”. I was just stating the obvious in what I was writing.
I realise the $10 billion is your latest estimate.

No this is wrong because a market price on emissions will be the lowest price, it would be fair lower, at least by 50%, perhaps by 66% or more

The cost of permits will rise over time because the total pollution cap is progressively reduced. This means fewer permits may still raise greater revenue as they become more expensive and as pollution goes down.

Don’t these two statements contradict each other ??

Also if the system works and emissions reduce there is less demand for permits so the price must drop not increase. Or are you suggesting you have no confidence in the “polluting” companies reducing their emissions.

You know its people like the adams family who tempt me to actually be against nuclear power.

The adams family deliberately side steps the horrific genetic problems post chernobyl in an attempt to mask the truth for no other reason than for their ideological tax.

They then spout on about the nuclear non proliferation treaty in response to discussions on nuclear power. Never mind what australias neighbours might object to having a potential fukishima on their doorstep. According to the adams family – they can shove it – we don’t care about them unless they’re claiming something to help the great red cause, apparently.

Julia Gillard is not the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia until such time as she is officially sworn in, in accordance with section 42 of the “Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act”.

Section 42 states – “Every senator and every member of the House of Representatives shall before taking his seat make and subscribe before the Governor-General,or some person authorised by him,an oath or affirmation of allegiance in the form set forth set forth in the schedule to this Constitution.”

Schedule

Oath

I,A.B.,do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria,Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!

Affirmation

I,A.B.,do solemnly and do sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithfull and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria,Her heirs and successors according to law.

Note: The name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time.

….
That Julia Gillard was not sworn in according to the Constitution can be seen in the videos cited.

The oath/affirmation referred to in section 42 is the Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance, which presumably JuLIAR took when she was elected to parliament, along with all the other crooked liars we elected at the time (they do it as a group I think).

The oath/affirmation JuLIAR is taking depicted in the videos is the Oath or Affirmation of Office which is a different one taken by people who are going to fill certain specific positions – in this case – PM.

They also are the first bill that I know of that include massive compensation penalties for repealing them. You mind explaining just how these are sound decision by the government?

They do no such thing.

The constitution states that the federal government can only compulsorily acquire the property of an individual or business if it provides compensation “on just terms”. The pollution permits that businesses will need to buy constitute a property right, thus to shut down the ETS the government would have to abide by the constitution and pay out compensation for each permit sold “on just terms”. This is why once the ETS is enacted it will never be repealed, doing so would require paying out perhaps $10 billion worth of compensation for absolutely no return for tax payers.

Julia did not take the oath as prescribed in the Constitution at her swearing in at the Governor-Generals residence.

You will also notice that members to be sworn in took their seats before taking the oath in the Parliament.

In Letters Patent Relating to the Office of Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, Kevin Rudd drew up a four page document to change the oath,but the only person to sign the fourth page was himself. The Queen signed the first page in the top right hand corner – probably because she new the problems inherent.

No they are not contradictory. A market price will be far lower than any government mandated price because politicians and bureaucrats simply can’t pick the most efficient forms of abatement. They may get lucky and do it some of the time but they won’t do it even part of the time, hence abatement will occur at a greater cost to the tax payer than a market mechanism.

Also if the system works and emissions reduce there is less demand for permits so the price must drop not increase. Or are you suggesting you have no confidence in the “polluting” companies reducing their emissions.

You are ignoring my post. I over time the total pollution cap for the entire economy is decreased, which means permits become scarcer, which means the price of permits goes up.

Yes I agree that there is a countervailing force of businesses no longer needing as many permits as they cut pollution, but the cap is still progressively reduce to ensure Australia hits its targets. If businesses voluntarily cut their pollution by a greater amount, then the cap doesn’t have to be lowered as quickly, so permit prices won’t rise as quickly.

That’s the market system as work. The permit price functions as an equilibrium based on how fast emissions are being reduced.

Also what happens if the emssions market crashes? It’s likely that could happen,given the scams that people are running to scams people via said market.

It will only crash if there is an over supply of permits. But that can be solved very easily. The government simply auctions of fewer permits in later years.

Some people have said the New Zealand scheme has crashed. But actually the permit price has remained low become the NZ economy isn’t growing very fast. This again is a perfect example of the flexibility of a market mechanism. If the economy is growing slowly, and emissions are not increasing as rapidly, then it makes sense for the permit price to fall, which places less financial strain on businesses. If the economy starts growing quickly, and more businesses are producing pollution, the permit price will rise.

It acts like an automatic stabiliser, like having a floating currency.

This is why once the ETS is enacted it will never be repealed, doing so would require paying out perhaps $10 billion worth of compensation for absolutely no return for tax payers.

Which is why this provision was only put in to insure that is could never be repealed without $10 billion worth of compensation for absolutely no return for tax payers,because this government knows its going down in the next election,and it’s too bull-headed to actually listen for once,instead of rushing ahead with this tax-against all oppostition,like a bull in a china shop. The carbon tax is beyond the Federal legislator as it is not described in sections 51 or 52 or 55 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900. They cannot bring in any legislation regarding the environment without an extra subsection being added to section 51 and this can only be achieved via section 128 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900 being a referendum. Any legislation allowing a Carbon tax is ultra Vires and therefore invalid.

The adams family deliberately side steps the horrific genetic problems post chernobyl in an attempt to mask the truth for no other reason than for their ideological tax.

Well wow. You are relying on the specious arguments of the Greens and some environmentalists. Chernobyl was a catastrophe, but it has actually only killed a few thousand people directly or indirectly.

You should consider that about 2500 people a year die in Chinese coal mines. Or about 200,000 that die because of respiratory illnesses caused by the burning of coal world wide.

Electricity generation from coal is far deadly than nuclear power.

They then spout on about the nuclear non proliferation treaty in response to discussions on nuclear power.

Of course I did! Because the NPT clearly supports states using nuclear technologies for PEACEFUL purposes! I am more than happy to quote Article IV of the treaty again because you clearly didn’t read it:

Article IV

1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

Never mind what australias neighbours might object to having a potential fukishima on their doorstep. According to the adams family – they can shove it – we don’t care about them unless they’re claiming something to help the great red cause, apparently.

Yes they can shove it, because using nuclear power for peaceful purposes is an inalienable right of all countries signed up to the NPT. Australia has a proud tradition of opposing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, that will not change if we adopt nuclear power. Your entire argument is a red herring, you think you can oppose nuclear power by crapping on about nuclear weapons, when the NPT clearly says that the treaty to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons and materials can not be construed as in anyway limiting the right of nation states to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

Again, the parellels with North Korea are too obvious to miss.

What on earth are you going on about? North Korea developed a nuclear program for the explicit purpose of developing nuclear weapons. It disqualified itself from the NPT for doing so.

I am completely opposed to Australia developing nuclear weapons. You have basically scrapped the absolute bottom of the debating barrel by asserting that I support something I don’t, and have said that I don’t support something that I actually support!

Julia Gillard is not the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia until such time as she is officially sworn in, in accordance with section 42 of the “Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act”.

Completely wrong. There is no oath of office for the Prime Minister. The P.M. can write their own oath, which is what Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard chose to do.

They both declared an Oath to the Australian people rather than to the Queen.

Which is why this provision was only put in to insure that is could never be repealed without $10 billion worth of compensation for absolutely no return for tax payers

There is no such provision in the bills. It is simply part of our constitution that the federal government, unlike state governments, can not acquire property without providing “just terms” compensation. This is an excellent provision we have in our constitution. Unbelievably state governments CAN compulsorily acquire property without paying “just terms” compensation. They can take your $200,000 house off you and only give you $100,000 for it if they like.

because this government knows its going down in the next election,and it’s too bull-headed to actually listen for once,instead of rushing ahead with this tax-against all oppostition,like a bull in a china shop.

No. The permits are a property right to ensure confidence in the market system. The businesses need to know that the permits will have a value into the future, else the market won’t work properly.

The carbon tax is beyond the Federal legislator as it is not described in sections 51 or 52 or 55 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900.

1) It is not a carbon tax, it is a fixed price emissions trading scheme that goes to a market price from July 1, 2015.
2) The federal government has more than enough powers to regulate polluting businesses using the corporations power. In fact, it is the STATES that don’t have the powers to apply such taxes, which is why taxes on petrol, alcohol and tobacco must be levied by the federal government which then distributes the money to the states.

They cannot bring in any legislation regarding the environment without an extra subsection being added to section 51 and this can only be achieved via section 128 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900 being a referendum. Any legislation allowing a Carbon tax is ultra Vires and therefore invalid.

Completely wrong for several reasons. Firstly, the government is using the corporations power to introduce the permit system.

Secondly, the government can use the external affairs power to say that it is creating a mechanism to adhere to its obligations under the Kyoto protocol which was ratified as the first action of the Rudd government.

In Letters Patent Relating to the Office of Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, Kevin Rudd drew up a four page document to change the oath,but the only person to sign the fourth page was himself. The Queen signed the first page in the top right hand corner – probably because she new the problems inherent.

What a load of bogus nonsense. For starters the Queen does whatever them Australian PM tells her to do.

Secondly. Since when has the Queen only signing one page not meant consent for everything in the document?

Our government is going to impose a new cost on “persons”. For their “emissions” of carbon dioxide.

Those persons will have to pay a “charge”.

In exchange, they will receive a “permit” to “pollute”.

A permit to pollute which is both a property right … and effectively, is digital money.

So, what is that new government “charge”, then?

Is it a “tax”?

Is it a “duty of excise”?

It is an important question.

Because upon the answer to that question hinges another, far more important question.

The question of whether the government’s package of legislation bills for its “carbon pricing” scheme scam … is unconstitutional.

Indeed, for anyone paying close attention, there is tell-tale evidence that the government knows full well that their imposing a “charge” under their proposed “carbon pricing mechanism” would be unconstitutional.

Which explains why they are putting forward multiple, mutually-dependent, yet mutually-contradictory bills of legislation as part of their Clean Energy Future package, in a patently deceitful attempt to sneak this massive fraud through the Parliament.

Fortunately, this means that at least 3 of the 13 “backbone” draft bills of their too-clever-by-half package of legislation appear to leave our befanged, blood-sucking, undead government’s coffin lid wide open for any Constitutional lawyer with testicular fortitude and a functioning conscience – or, just a hankering to go down in history as the People’s Saviour – to drive a stake through the heart of the “carbon pricing mechanism” in the High Court.

(Though it may well require concerned citizens to stump up their cash en masse to help pay for a silver stake big enough to slaughter the Establishment – are you up for that?)

Where a carbon permit (a “unit”) is issued, and a person is liable to pay a charge for the issue of said unit – in other words, in the most basic function of the “mechanism” for the introductory “fixed price period” – the power of the Act to enforce payment for the unit only has effect insofar as “it is not a law imposing taxation” within the meaning of section 55 of the Constitution*.

Can it be any clearer, dear reader?

I was right.

It is NOT a tax.

The government’s own draft legislation specifically says so.

Greg Hunt MP … pwned!

Next.

Consider carefully the two additional draft bills that are referenced in Section 100 of that primary government bill (emphasis added):

And this is where the deception of this government begins to get really interesting.

Because the second of these two additional pieces of draft legislation for our so-called Clean Energy Future, contradicts each of the others with respect to the key definition.

What exactly is the legal definition – in the government’s proposed legislation – of the act of “imposing a charge” on “persons” in exchange for a carbon permit?

Above, in the major Clean Energy Bill, Section 100, we saw that the government defined that imposing a charge for a carbon permit is not done as an act of taxation under the Constitution section 55.

Just as I have argued all along.

But if not a “tax”, then what is it?

Let’s look at the first piece of additional draft legislation, referenced above as “Note (a)” in the bill for a Clean Energy Act.

It is called the Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Act 2011.

Beginning with the title on the front, both the connection and the definition are immediately clear (emphasis added):

A Bill for an Act to impose charges associated with the Clean Energy Act 2011, so far as those charges are duties of excise

And in Part 2 of this bill, we find the following details (emphasis added):

8 Imposition of charge

Auction

(1) If: (a) a carbon unit is issued to a person; and
(b) the unit is issued as the result of an auction;
charge is imposed on the issue of the unit.

(4) Subsection (1) imposes a charge only so far as that charge is a duty of excise within the meaning of section 55 of the Constitution.

Fixed charge

(5) If: (a) a carbon unit is issued to a person; and
(b) the unit is issued in accordance with section 100 of the Clean Energy Act 2011 (issue of units for a fixed charge);
charge is imposed on the issue of the unit.

(8) Subsection (5) imposes a charge only so far as that charge is a duty of excise within the meaning of section 55 of the Constitution.

In other words, this additional piece of draft legislation insists that the government’s imposition of a charge for their carbon permits – in both the “fixed price” and the “flexible price” (auction) periods – will be done only on the basis of the imposed charge being deemed “a duty of excise” under section 55 of the Constitution*.

Clear enough?

The charge imposed is not a tax (Clean Energy Act 2011).

The charge imposed is a duty of excise (Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Act 2011).

But wait!

The story does not end there.

Oh no, dear reader.

Prepare yourself for the truly risible punchline to this black comedy.

Because in the Note (b) mentioned above in the primary Clean Energy Bill, there is another piece of mutually-dependent legislation.

It is called the Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—General) Act 2011.

And this additional piece of legislation specifically and directly contradicts both of the previous definitions of what the act of imposing a charge for carbon permits actually is under the Constitution.

Here is what the Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—General) Act 2011 says in its title (emphasis added):

A Bill for an Act to impose charges associated with the Clean Energy Act 2011, so far as those charges are not duties of excise

And here is what we find in Section 8 (emphasis added):

8 Imposition of charge

Auction

(1) If: (a) a carbon unit is issued to a person; and
(b) the unit is issued as the result of an auction;
charge is imposed on the issue of the unit.

Subsection (1) imposes a charge only so far as that charge is:
(a) taxation within the meaning of section 55 of the Constitution; and
(b) not a duty of excise within the meaning of that section.

Fixed charge

(5) If: (a) a carbon unit is issued to a person; and
(b) the unit is issued in accordance with section 100 of the Clean Energy Act 2011 (issue of units for a fixed charge);
charge is imposed on the issue of the unit.

Subsection (5) imposes a charge only so far as that charge is:
(a) taxation within the meaning of section 55 of the Constitution; and
(b) not a duty of excise within the meaning of that section.

So.

According to the Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—General) Act 2011 – an Act which is “associated with the Clean Energy Act 2011” – the charge imposed only has force insofar as it is a tax, and is not a duty of excise.

Remember – in all of these pieces of legislation, we are talking about exactly the same “charge”!

Is it possible that this package of blatantly mutually-contradictory legislation might be challenged in the High Court?

Consider again.

We have three separate, yet mutually-dependent pieces of legislation, that are key vertebrae in the “backbone” of the government’s “carbon pricing mechanism”.

The main bill – Clean Energy Act 2011: Exposure draft, Part 4, Division 2, Section 100 – says that the imposition of a charge for carbon permits is not an act of imposing a tax.

(1) it is an Act that is “associated with the Clean Energy Act 2011″, and that
(2) the imposition of a charge for carbon permits is an act of imposing a tax, and is not an act of imposing “a duty of excise”.

WTF?

Ladies and gentlemen, your humble blogger is a mere small businessman. Not a lawyer.

But it seems obvious to me that, if the government cannot clearly and simply define what their charge for a carbon “unit” is – (ie) the burden of proof is on the government to show that their proposed new “charge” is in accordance with section 55 of the Constitution* – then their multiple, mutually-dependent yet mutually-contradictory definitions of what the “charge” is, must offer plenty of scope to challenge the legislation.

Moreover, there is another section of the Constitution which also gives rise to challenging the government’s legislation.

Given that their mutually-dependent, yet mutually-contradictory pieces of the legislation package collectively state that the proposed charge is (a) not a tax, and (b) not a duty of excise either, then the proposed imposition of a carbon dioxide “charge” appears to be in breach of the Constitutional powers of the government, section 51 (emphasis added):

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 51

Legislative powers of the Parliament

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

(ii) taxation; but so as not to discriminate between States or parts of States;

(iii) bounties on the production or export of goods, but so that such bounties shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth;

If (as the government’s legislation confesses) the “charge” is not a tax, and is not a duty of excise either, then the government’s proposed imposition of a “charge” in exchange for carbon “permits” (or “units”), is not within the government’s powers to legislate, as defined by section 51 of the Constitution.

Are there any lawyers with testicular fortitude and a functioning conscience out there?

Just one, who might wish to become Australia’s national saviour.

How?

By challenging these key aspects of the government’s carbon dioxide “tax” legislation.

Note carefully just one possible angle of attack.

The entire “introductory” period of the government’s “carbon pricing mechanism” hinges upon the first clause quoted above, in the Clean Energy Act 2011, Section 100.

The government’s draft clause clearly – though sneakily – concedes that the power to demand payment from “persons” in exchange for the (compulsory) issue of carbon permits in the “fixed price period”, rests upon this action not being deemed an act of taxation under Section 55 of the Constitution.

All it takes is for one wise lawyer – backed by ample public funding – to challenge this in the High Court, and demonstrate that:

(a) the government has, in public discourse, consistently and repeatedly used the specific term “tax” in describing the introduction of its “carbon pricing mechanism”;

(b) by contrast, the government’s actual legislation with respect to the introductory “fixed price period” specifically states in its primary Clean Energy Act 2011 bill, that its power to enforce the “charge” during this period is dependent on the act of charging for a “unit” not being deemed an act of “imposing taxation” under Section 55 of the Constitution;

(c) the government’s other, mutually-dependent supporting legislation referenced by the Clean Energy Act 2011 is mutually-contradictory, and therefore the act of imposing the “carbon unit” charge would be in breach of section 51 and/or section 55 of the Constitution – because in the government’s own words, it is not a tax, and not a duty of excise either.

This punitive, climatically-futile legislation can be defeated.

Legally.

The government would, of course, try to defend its position by claiming that imposing a charge for the (compulsory) issue of a carbon “unit” is not a breach of the Constitution section 55.

Saying so, does not make it so.

Moreover, even if a Constitutional challenge failed to stop the legislation – who can really trust the government-appointed High Court, after all – consider this.

The government’s being forced to defend their legislation’s assertion that the introductory “fixed price period” is not a tax in the High Court, would serve to focus the public spotlight on the government’s many months of blatant lies and deception about what their scheme scam actually is.

Because – as I have said all along – what they are calling a “tax”, is not a “tax” at all.

Neither is it a “duty of excise”.

And the government knows it.

As now conclusively proven, by their own draft legislation.

Here finally endeth the lesson, on the “tax” that even the government’s own legislation says is not a “tax”.

Calling all lawyers …

* COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 55

Tax Bill

Laws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation, and any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect.

Laws imposing taxation, except laws imposing duties of customs or of excise, shall deal with one subject of taxation only; but laws imposing duties of customs shall deal with duties of customs only, and laws imposing duties of excise shall deal with duties of excise only.

For our Green-Labor government, who constantly repeat the refrain in their mutually-dependent and mutually-contradictory Clean Energy bills, that these “ensure compliance with section 55 of the Constitution”:

“You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it’s going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogma or goals, it’s always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.”
- Robert M. Pirsig
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

Regarding the discussion on the benefits of a carbon price to nuclear power. A leaked wikileaks diplomatic cable reveals John Carlson, then director-general of Australian Safeguards and Non-proliferation Office, telling then PM Kevin Rudd that we needed to adopt nuclear power, and that this could be encouraged by a carbon price.

[Carlson] believed it was impossible to reduce carbon emissions without looking to nuclear power, which was the only alternative to coal-fired power plants that could produce the amount of electricity required.

However, nuclear power plants had high initial costs, which meant the only way they could be introduced was if the government adopted a cap-and-trade scheme…

Kevin, I’m on a restricted connection in the bush, so youtube has to be rationed. You just wrote:

Julia did not take the oath as prescribed in the Constitution at her swearing in at the Governor-Generals residence.

Are you talking about the oath prescribed for incoming members of parliament? If so, it would be illegitimate to take that oath instead of the Oath of Affirmation of Office at her swearing in as PM.

Sorry to harp, but Gillard is my PM as far as I can see. Of course, I wish it was not so.

It’s also important to consider the character of the GG, whom I recognise as my sovereign’s legitimate representative. Quentin Bryce is an imperious, trough-swilling leftist who can barely be restrained from any form of self-promotion and promotion of left/Labor causes. We have to wait her out, not hope that she will be the catalyst of the government’s collapse.

Just remember who ended up as PM after our last constitutional crisis: a trouserless, faithless, left-leaning squatter.

Dear Mr W…,
Thank you for your letter of 29 October. Although you
state that you are not a lawyer you are on the right track in
expressing the view that the Constitution cannot be altered
under Section L2B to remove the Crown from the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth was established not by the
Constitution but by the Constitution Act which sets out the
Constitution in Section 9 of that Act. Section 1-28 gives
power to amend the Constitution but not the Constitution Act.
As you have recognised the Constitution Act establishes
Australia as an “indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the
Crown”.
The Constitution Act was an Act of the British
Parliament and for that reason cannot be amended by the
Australian Parliament. The British Parliament has by the
Australia Act 1986 terminated its power to legislate for
Australia. Theoretically no one can repeal the Constitution
Act. In practice, if all the Parliaments concerned (British,
Australian and the States) did legislate to amend the
Australia Act that would be effective although it would amount
1ega1ly to a revolution.
Like many other legal questions this one is not
altogether free from doubt but in my opinion which I have
expressed above is shared by a number of other lawyers. The
opinion has been expressed in public but it has received
little media attention.
Yours sincerely,
[Sir Harry Gibbs]

Our government is going to impose a new cost on “persons”. For their “emissions” of carbon dioxide.

Wrong. Individuals do not directly pay for emissions permits.

Those persons will have to pay a “charge”.

Wrong. People will pay extra in the form of flow on costs from businesses that pay for permits. The average price rise for all goods and services will be 0.7%. The biggest price rise will be for electricity, about 10% in the first year, or about $3 per week for the average household.

In exchange, they will receive a “permit” to “pollute”.

Wrong. Individuals do not need to buy permits. They will be bought by about 500 businesses that create the most greenhouse gas emissions.

A permit to pollute which is both a property right … and effectively, is digital money.

Yes it will count as a property right under the constitution. It can only be confiscated if the government pays compensation.

So, what is that new government “charge”, then?

I don’t know what you mean. The permits will intiially cost $23 each, and will allow the holder to put 1 tonne of CO2 equivalent into the air.

Is it a “tax”?

Not really, because taxes can’t be traded.

Is it a “duty of excise”?

No.

It is an important question.

It is a permit.

The question of whether the government’s package of legislation bills for its “carbon pricing” scheme scam … is unconstitutional.

How can a question be unconstitutional?

Indeed, for anyone paying close attention, there is tell-tale evidence that the government knows full well that their imposing a “charge” under their proposed “carbon pricing mechanism” would be unconstitutional.

You are the first person to claim the scheme is unconstitutional. Even the opposition that opposes the scheme (but knows they’ll never be able to get rid of it) has not claimed it is unconstitutional.

Which explains why they are putting forward multiple, mutually-dependent, yet mutually-contradictory bills of legislation as part of their Clean Energy Future package, in a patently deceitful attempt to sneak this massive fraud through the Parliament.

Explain one contradiction in the bills.

Fortunately, this means that at least 3 of the 13 “backbone” draft bills of their too-clever-by-half package of legislation appear to leave our befanged, blood-sucking, undead government’s coffin lid wide open for any Constitutional lawyer with testicular fortitude and a functioning conscience – or, just a hankering to go down in history as the People’s Saviour – to drive a stake through the heart of the “carbon pricing mechanism” in the High Court.

Why does it have to be a constional lawyer? If you are so confident the bills are unconstitutional, why don’t you take hte government to the High Court? Or don’t you have the “testicular fortitude” and / or “functioning conscience”?

(Though it may well require concerned citizens to stump up their cash en masse to help pay for a silver stake big enough to slaughter the Establishment – are you up for that?)

If you are so confident of your case, surely there is a barrister in your area that is willing to work pro bono?

Team Adam – or as they are more affectionately known in some circles here as “The Adams family”, are only here to deflect threads into meaningless trivialities.

One only has to read of the endless claims that the carbon tax legislation will somehow “promote nuclear power”, when the legislation clearly misdirects all future R&D and investment to “renewables” – principally wind and solar, to understand where this little band of misfits are coming from.

Refuse to Pay Government Debt Incurred for Unlawful and Oppressive Purposes … It Is the Personal Debt of Those Who Ordered It to Be Incurred

By Washington’s Blog

February 12, 2010 ” Washington’s Blog” – - There is an established legal principle that people should not have to repay their government’s debt to the extent that it is incurred to launch aggressive wars or to oppress the people.
These “odious debts” are considered to be the personal debts of the tyrants who incurred them, rather than the country’s debt.

Wikipedia gives a good overview of the principle:

In international law, odious debt is a legal theory which holds that the national debt incurred by a regime for purposes that do not serve the best interests of the nation, such as wars of aggression, should not be enforceable. Such debts are thus considered by this doctrine to be personal debts of the regime that incurred them and not debts of the state. In some respects, the concept is analogous to the invalidity of contracts signed under coercion.

The doctrine was formalized in a 1927 treatise by Alexander Nahum Sack, a Russian émigré legal theorist, based upon 19th Century precedents including Mexico’s repudiation of debts incurred by Emperor Maximilian’s regime, and the denial by the United States of Cuban liability for debts incurred by the Spanish colonial regime. According to Sack:

When a despotic regime contracts a debt, not for the needs or in the interests of the state, but rather to strengthen itself, to suppress a popular insurrection, etc, this debt is odious for the people of the entire state. This debt does not bind the nation; it is a debt of the regime, a personal debt contracted by the ruler, and consequently it falls with the demise of the regime. The reason why these odious debts cannot attach to the territory of the state is that they do not fulfil one of the conditions determining the lawfulness of State debts, namely that State debts must be incurred, and the proceeds used, for the needs and in the interests of the State. Odious debts, contracted and utilised for purposes which, to the lenders’ knowledge, are contrary to the needs and the interests of the nation, are not binding on the nation – when it succeeds in overthrowing the government that contracted them – unless the debt is within the limits of real advantages that these debts might have afforded. The lenders have committed a hostile act against the people, they cannot expect a nation which has freed itself of a despotic regime to assume these odious debts, which are the personal debts of the ruler.
Patricia Adams, executive director of Probe International (an environmental and public policy advocacy organisation in Canada), and author of Odious Debts: Loose Lending, Corruption, and the Third World’s Environmental Legacy, has stated that:

by giving creditors an incentive to lend only for purposes that are transparent and of public benefit, future tyrants will lose their ability to finance their armies, and thus the war on terror and the cause of world peace will be better served.

A recent article by economists Seema Jayachandran and Michael Kremer has renewed interest in this topic. They propose that the idea can be used to create a new type of economic sanction to block further borrowing by dictators.
Jubilee USA notes that creditors may lose their rights to repayment of odious debts:
Odious debt is an established legal principle. Legally, debt is to be considered odious if the government used the money for personal purposes or to oppress the people. Moreover, in cases where borrowed money was used in ways contrary to the people’s interest, with the knowledge of the creditors, the creditors may be said to have committed a hostile act against the people. Creditors cannot legitimately expect repayment of such debts.

The United States set the first precedent of odious debt when it seized control of Cuba from Spain. Spain insisted that Cuba repay the loans made to them by Spain. The U.S. repudiated (refused to pay) that debt, arguing that the debt was imposed on Cuba by force of arms and served Spain’s interest rather than Cuba’s, and that the debt therefore ought not be repaid. This precedent was upheld by international law in Great Britain v. Costa Rica (1923) when money was put to use for illegitimate purposes with full knowledge of the lending institution; the resulting debt was annulled.

The launch of the Iraq war was an unlawful war of aggression. It was based on false premises (weapons of mass destruction and a connection between Iraq and 9/11; see this, this, this, this, this and this). Therefore, the trillions in debts incurred in fighting that war are odious debts which the people might lawfully refuse to pay for.

The Bush and Obama administrations have also oppressed the American people through spying on us – even before 9/11 (confirmed here and here) – harassment of innocent grandmothers and other patriotic Americans criticizing government action, and other assaults on liberty and the rule of law. See this. The monies borrowed to finance these oppressive activities are also odious debts.

The government has also given trillions in bailouts, loans, guarantees and other perks to the too big to fails. These funds have not helped the American people. For example, the giant banks are still not loaning. They have solely gone into speculative investments and to line the pockets of the muckety-mucks in the form of bonuses. PhD economist Dean Baker said that the true purpose of the bank rescues is “a massive redistribution of wealth to the bank shareholders and their top executives”. Two leading IMF officials, the former Vice President of the Dallas Federal Reserve, and the the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City have all said that the United States is controlled by an oligarchy. PhD economist Michael Hudson says that the financial “parasites” have killed the American economy, and they are “sucking as much money out” as they can before “jumping ship”. These are odious debts.

Bush, Cheney, Paulson, Geithner, Summers and others who ordered that these debts be incurred must be held personally liable for them. We the American people are not responsible to creditors – such as China, Saudi Arabia – who have knowingly financed these illegal and oppressive activities which have not benefited the American people, but solely the handful of corrupt politicians who authorized them.

Note: Of course, many mom and pop American investors hold U.S. treasury bonds as well. The size of their haircuts on U.S. bonds might – under a strict reading of the principle of odious debt – depend on whether or not they knew of the unlawful and oppressive activities of the U.S. government. Arguably, small individual investors tend to be much less knowledgeable about such matters than other countries such as China or Saudi Arabia.

Ha, yeah mate, you’re smarter than the people who drafted the bills. Whatever

.

Actually yes I do think most of us here are smarter than the people who drafted these bills,when said bill ignores all opposition and protests from both the country where the bill’s coming from and major business/es that know that it will hurt them. Instead of rushing ahead,any sane person would sit down and listen to their concerns,instead of trying to rush the bill/s in question through parliament.

Actually yes I do think most of us here are smarter than the people who drafted these bills,when said bill ignores all opposition and protests from both the country where the bill’s coming from and major business/es that know that it will hurt them.

What the hell has any of this got to do with the people that drafted the bills? The bills aren’t drafted by the Government. They are drafted by public servants charged with the job of taking a government policy and converting it to legislation.

If you know so much about these bills, why didn’t you make a submission to when the draft bills were published? Of course you didn’t do that, because you have no idea what you are going on about.

Instead of rushing ahead,any sane person would sit down and listen to their concerns,instead of trying to rush the bill/s in question through parliament.

You had your chance to do this when the draft bills were released in August. But you didn’t do it because you’re all talk and no action.

You had your chance to do this when the draft bills were released in August. But you didn’t do it because you’re all talk and no action

And,just in your wisdom,or lack of it,do you know I didn’t make a submission,given that you know nothing about me,or that whether I’m all talk and no action?

What the hell has any of this got to do with the people that drafted the bills? The bills aren’t drafted by the Government. They are drafted by public servants charged with the job of taking a government policy and converting it to legislation.

And said public servants were working for the government,or do you claim that they put together a bill like this on their own? The government policy in question was something they specially said they wouldn’t do when they were elected.

And,just in your wisdom,or lack of it,do you know I didn’t make a submission,given that you know nothing about me,or that whether I’m all talk and no action?

Well it seems your (probably non-existant) submission was ignored because the government only accepted 18 technical amendments.
[And said public servants were working for the government,or do you claim that they put together a bill like this on their own?]
The people who draft bills are experts in writing legislation to implement government policies. It is not the job of government ministers to know how to write the legislation. The Minister for Climate change is not even a lawyer, he has a degree in mining engineering.

The bill drafters can seek advice from the solicitor general if needed.

Thank you for admitting that the government did take a policy to price carbon to the last election.
The government policy in question was something they specially said they wouldn’t do when they were elected.

174Adam Smith:
September 20th, 2011 at 7:34 pm Team Adam – or as they are more affectionately known in some circles here as “The Adams family”, are only here to deflect threads into meaningless trivialities.
This is an OPEN THREAD. We can post about what we like here!

Emphasis on the WE

Andrew and Gina in WA
Might like a copy of your post , They have a bit of cash for Lawyers,They might be onto it already but who knows

“Chernobyl was a catastrophe, but it has actually only killed a few thousand people directly or indirectly”

Wow, now that is a truly callous statement. I was talking about the genetic defects – leukaemia etc which will continue for generations to come. Well I guess whats a few thousand innocent lives to sacrifice for good old mother gaia, eh!

“You should consider that about 2500 people a year die in Chinese coal mines. Or about 200,000 that die because of respiratory illnesses caused by the burning of coal world wide.”

Again, deflection, if the numbers were in australia, well then you might have a point, but you don’t because were talking about Nuclear power in the Pacific. Should I bring up the millions of africans who die each year due to the lack of cheap energy for cooking, while watermelons try to convince them not to put in the most economical and safest means of energy production?

“the NPT clearly supports states using nuclear technologies..”

No, the NPT is aimed at controlling the spread of nuclear weapons and materials to make said weapons, the clause you mention is merely to isolate the NPT from the use of nuclear for peaceful purposes, so in the discussion of Nuclear in australia it is irrelevant because it doesn’t actually give us or anyone else an automatic license to do as we please.

re: Australias’ Neighbours:

“Yes they can shove it, because using nuclear power for peaceful purposes is an inalienable right of all countries signed up to the NPT”

Good one, what a typical blinkered and isolationist comment. I sure wouldn’t want to live in your neighbourhood. I can tell you for a fact that Nuclear power without the approval of our neighbours would weaken Australias foreign policy in other areas – especially if we tell them to SHOVE IT, as you advise!

“I am completely opposed to Australia developing nuclear weapons.”

And yet, you provide no real answers on what to do with the waste and how to ensure it doesn’t fall into the wrong hands. For crying out loud, our current government cannot even get pink batts put in peoples homes without burning some of them down!

The Minister for Climate change is not even a lawyer, he has a degree in mining engineering

.

That opens more questions, Just how does the minister for Climate Change have a degree in Mining Engineering,and not a degree or a doctorate in the field that he is in office for,and him not being a lawyer explains why he feels the need to spend 3 minutes attacking people in parliament personally instead of answering the quation,because he knows that he can’t answer the question. I’ve been listening to the debate in the senate recently and he’s a disgrace. A point of Order shouldn’t have to be passed before the Speaker,that he spends more time attacking the questioner personally than answering the question,which was asked in the first place.

Well it seems your (probably non-existant) submission was ignored because the government only accepted 18 technical amendments.

Again just who you do know that my submission was ignored,unless you work in the government?Prove what you are saying please.

Wow, now that is a truly callous statement. I was talking about the genetic defects – leukaemia etc which will continue for generations to come. Well I guess whats a few thousand innocent lives to sacrifice for good old mother gaia, eh!

I never implied we should sacrifice innocent lives. Chernobyl was a poorly designed reactor operated by poorly trained people operating in a country run by an inherently corrupt government, and you think that is relevant to Australia?

Again, deflection, if the numbers were in australia, well then you might have a point, but you don’t because were talking about Nuclear power in the Pacific. Should I bring up the millions of africans who die each year due to the lack of cheap energy for cooking, while watermelons try to convince them not to put in the most economical and safest means of energy production?

What are you talking about. My argument is that nuclear is safer than coal, so statistics on deaths caused from coal mining and the effects of burning coal are perfectly relevant. The coal industry has killed more innocent people than nuclear power. Yet you attack nuclear power and implicitly defend coal!

No, the NPT is aimed at controlling the spread of nuclear weapons and materials to make said weapons, the clause you mention is merely to isolate the NPT from the use of nuclear for peaceful purposes, so in the discussion of Nuclear in australia it is irrelevant because it doesn’t actually give us or anyone else an automatic license to do as we please.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever! Australia is a signatory to the NPT. Article IV clearly gives Australia an inherent right to develop nuclear power stations if we choose. We would simply have to submit ourselves to the IAEA inspection regime that every other country must do too!

Your argument is completely baseless and is simply requires completely ignoring the text of the NPT!

Good one, what a typical blinkered and isolationist comment. I sure wouldn’t want to live in your neighbourhood. I can tell you for a fact that Nuclear power without the approval of our neighbours would weaken Australias foreign policy in other areas – especially if we tell them to SHOVE IT, as you advise!

AUSTRALIA DOES NOT REQUIRES THE APPROVAL OF ITS NEIGHBOURS TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR POWER!

You are completely laughable. Many people in this forum seem to be suspicious of world government, yet you can’t even see a clear case of Australia having rights. You think we need to go and get Indonesia’s permission to develop nuclear power! What a ridiculous joke.

And yet, you provide no real answers on what to do with the waste and how to ensure it doesn’t fall into the wrong hands. For crying out loud, our current government cannot even get pink batts put in peoples homes without burning some of them down!

Ah great. So your actual position is finally clear you are opposed to nuclear power because you are an anti-nuclear zealot and all your previous arguments have just been a silly smokescreen of nonsense to hide the fact that you think people dying from energy generation from coal is fine.

That opens more questions, Just how does the minister for Climate Change have a degree in Mining Engineering,and not a degree or a doctorate in the field that he is in office for

LOL! Because we have a representative democracy where there is no restriction on office. Combet is in office because he represents the electorate of Charlton, which is a coal mining seat.

If you are such a legal genius, why the hell don’t you understand that basic fact of our government?

…and him not being a lawyer explains why he feels the need to spend 3 minutes attacking people in parliament personally instead of answering the quation,because he knows that he can’t answer the question.

WTF!? You’re not seriously saying that the parliament needs more lawyers are you?

I’ve been listening to the debate in the senate recently and he’s a disgrace. A point of Order shouldn’t have to be passed before the Speaker,that he spends more time attacking the questioner personally than answering the question,which was asked in the first place.

Are you sure you were listening to the Senate, because Greg Combet isn’t a Senator.

point of order. What is really really annoying about your posts is that I have no idea who you are quoting in blue. After some effort in each post I can find the attribution (and sometimes it is from multiple posts), but why should I be searching for the post?

point of order. What is really really annoying about your posts is that I have no idea who you are quoting in blue. After some effort in each post I can find the attribution (and sometimes it is from multiple posts)

Are you sure you were listening to the Senate, because Greg Combet isn’t a Senator.

I am positive that it was the Senate. Explain to me,just what gives him the right to personally attack another Senator,instead of answering the question/s he was asked in the first place,to the extent that a Point of order was brought in,about him spending the first 3 minutes of ever speech to do so. None of us would tolerate that abuse,so why does he chose to do so?

WTF!? You’re not seriously saying that the parliament needs more lawyers are you?

No but more that understand the answers to the questions they are asked would be nice. His lack to do so, and his need to resort to abuse is a disgrace to both him and the government he serves. His party leader should have pulled him up
immediately when he started this.

LOL! Because we have a representative democracy where there is no restriction on office. Combet is in office because he represents the electorate of Charlton, which is a coal mining seat.

if that’s the case why was he chosen for Climate Minister,if he’s from a mining seat? I’m sure Labor has plenty of other candidates that would do a better job.

Just one of the advantages of being a billionaire who pays a lot of mining royalties.

Andrew Forrest should have been [snip]

Just another one of the advantages of being a billionaire who pays a lot of mining royalties.

You have no right to accuse people without proof. If you are so convinced about this,give me your real name and address,and I’ll pass your comment/s on to them, so they can take you to court for slander.

I am positive that it was the Senate. Explain to me,just what gives him the right to personally attack another Senator,instead of answering the question/s he was asked in the first place,t

That’s how question time has worked since time immemorial.

I am not saying it is good, but that’s how it has worked for years.

No but more that understand the answers to the questions they are asked would be nice. His lack to do so, and his need to resort to abuse is a disgrace to both him and the government he serves. His party leader should have pulled him up

You must’ve been listening to someone else. What Combet usually does in Question Time is point out all the absurd things that Tony Abbott has said in the past week.

You know, stuff like asserting that carbon dioxide (which Abbott has a habit of pronouncing “Dock Side”) is weightless.

if that’s the case why was he chosen for Climate Minister,if he’s from a mining seat? I’m sure Labor has plenty of other candidates that would do a better job.

Because the PM assigns people to portfolios. For a legal expert you seem to have a very basic understanding of how our system of government works.

Greg Combet is very popular with miners because he WAS a miner before becoming a union organiser.

You must’ve been listening to someone else. What Combet usually does in Question Time is point out all the absurd things that Tony Abbott has said in the past week.

You know, stuff like asserting that carbon dioxide (which Abbott has a habit of pronouncing “Dock Side”) is weightless

.

I’m sure that it was him, as the question was addressed to the Climate Change Minister,unless he’s in the habit of getting other people to answer his questions for him. All I can say is it’s lucky he was protected by Parlimentary Privilege,because if any of us people tried that that,they’d be a court case going for slander shortly.

What the hell has any of this got to do with the people that drafted the bills? The bills aren’t drafted by the Government. They are drafted by public servants charged with the job of taking a government policy and converting it to legislation.

What if the Public Servants dont like the bills,
How might they then be drafted ?

[I’m sure that it was him, as the question was addressed to the Climate Change Minister,unless he’s in the habit of getting other people to answer his questions for him. All I can say is it’s lucky he was protected by Parlimentary Privilege,because if any of us people tried that that,they’d be a court case going for slander shortly.]
Senators represent other ministers who are in the House. So it was probably Combet’s representative.

What if the Public Servants dont like the bills,
How might they then be drafted ?

BAD LUCK! The public servants are paid to turn government policies into legislation EVEN IF THEY DON’T LIKE IT.

We are in a democracy FFS!

If a public servant refused to draft a bill because they “didn’t like it”, they would face disciplinary action under the public service code. If they still refused to do their job, they would be sacked.

I’m sure that it was him, as the question was addressed to the Climate Change Minister,unless he’s in the habit of getting other people to answer his questions for him. All I can say is it’s lucky he was protected by Parlimentary Privilege,because if any of us people tried that that,they’d be a court case going for slander shortly.]
Senators represent other ministers who are in the House. So it was probably Combet’s representative

Still it doesn’t excuse his represenatives behaviour,nor does it help his case.
Such triades of personal abuse have a way of leaking onto the interwebs,unless he apologized for the represenative afterwards. Anyone listening in to questiontime on hearing that would be disgusted that he used his parliamentary privileges as a excuse for such abuse.

You have no right to accuse people without proof. If you are so convinced about this,give me your real name and address,and I’ll pass your comment/s on to them,so they can take you to court for slander.

Who I am is no secret on this blog.
Google “One Man banned – Australia’s Greatest Whistleblower”
The book was about me.

Once you know my name, my address is should be no problem, since I’ve disclosed several time that I live on Moreton Bay QLD.

Feel free to pass the info on to Twiggy and Gina and we’ll both wait and see what happens.

Re Gina Rinehart and her “vision” for North Australia, check out the website she sponsors on the subject:

BAD LUCK! The public servants are paid to turn government policies into legislation EVEN IF THEY DON’T LIKE IT.

We are in a democracy FFS!

If a public servant refused to draft a bill because they “didn’t like it”, they would face disciplinary action under the public service code. If they still refused to do their job, they would be sacked.

Does not sound like a democracy to me .

May be the said public servants might manipulate the
wordings in the bill ?

1) A clear, fact based argument is constructed to propose it
2) A clear indication that the correct controls will be put in place for risk mitigation
3) Proposals will not be subject to any form of schedule crash
4) The proposals are discussed to the wider public in a factual way without any spin and that the wider public has ample opportunity and platform to debatethe proposal beforehand
5) Clear plans are made for the safe removal and storage of by products
6) The proposals are discussed with australias neighbours in a constructive way with any of their concerns being given a voice.
7) All of these measures are conducted in a clear and honest way without any spin from the pro nuclear perspective.

From the Adams family, I basicallyget the following:

‘We will get nuclear power fast tracked now because the carbon tax is rigging things to make nuclear viable whether you want it or not. Any arguments which might help nuclear get in place sooner must be supported. any other arguments should be diverted with hyperbole. As for australias neighbours, they can shove it because australia signed another piece of paper which the adams family has misinterpreted to mean we have a license to do as we please FTW. And as for the risks, who cares, only a few thousand people died as a result of chernobyl.’

The Adams family are to the nuclear debate what Craig thomson is to the cncept of fiscal responsibility.

With attitudes like yours, nuclear power will never be an option in australia. And that is a genuine shame.

‘We will get nuclear power fast tracked now because the carbon tax is rigging things to make nuclear viable whether you want it or not. Any arguments which might help nuclear get in place sooner must be supported. any other arguments should be diverted with hyperbole. As for australias neighbours, they can shove it because australia signed another piece of paper which the adams family has misinterpreted to mean we have a license to do as we please FTW. And as for the risks, who cares, only a few thousand people died as a result of chernobyl.’

Rather than telling lies about people’s positions, why not debate their actual position?

I concede it is a nice touch to put into quotes something I haven’t written, but it is only debating rhetoric.

The facts are simple. Even a low carbon price of $20 a tonne makes nuclear cheaper than all proven baseload alternatives.

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty explicitly reserves the right of all signatories to pursue nuclear technologies, such as nuclear power stations, for peaceful purposes.

Everything else in your post is just lies, spin and innuendo that you clearly had to revert to because you realise you don’t really have an argument.

With attitudes like yours, nuclear power will never be an option in australia. And that is a genuine shame.

Completely wrong. Nuclear power will never be an option in Australia with your attitude, because you seem to oppose pricing carbon. Without a carbon price, nuclear will remain more expensive than just burning coal.

Where is the incentive to use nuclear given that state of affairs? There is none. you need a low carbon price to make nuclear relatively cheaper.

Fukashima is now a bigger disaster than Chernobyl, why bother listening to the peanut throwers in the gallery.

Completely and utterly untrue!

About 300 people died in the 24 hours after the Chernobyl disaster from radiation poisoning alone.

So far there isn’t ONE confirmed death from radiation at Fukushima. The workers that died DROWNED from the flooding caused by the tsunami.

Why not go with Thorium or instead of pissing away 650 billion to Al Gore or some other scammer why not invest all that cash in R&D on nuclear fusion.

Because thorium is unproven. The greenies that say we should just rely on “baseload wind” or “Baseload solar” or “carbon capture and storage” are being misleading because these technologies aren’t proven. It is wrong for nuclear advocates to say we should just use thorium because such Gen IV reactors are unproven.

If we are going to debate energy policy, we should concentrate on what is possible NOW.

Building a fission reactor is a WOFTAM.

No, building a fission reactor is what current proven nuclear technologies can acheive.

Lets start to get real on this and the only way we can do it is to cut that festering boil some call Adam Smith away and leave him behind.

Excuse me? You are proposing censorship of ideas that you don’t like?

I thought this forum respects free speech? If you only want to hear ideas you agree with, then it suggests you want an echo chamber and aren’t interested in engaging with challenging ideas.

Adam Smith:
September 20th, 2011 at 9:42 pmpoint of order. What is really really annoying about your posts is that I have no idea who you are quoting in blue. After some effort in each post I can find the attribution (and sometimes it is from multiple posts)
This is wrong. I never quote from multiple posts in one post.
I write a new post.

[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

OK… I’ll take your word that you are correct in what you say but some of the quoted text appears in multiple posts so adding to the confusion. Whether you like it or not, it is hard to follow a thread with quotes done as you’ve done (and I hope threading will appear here soon).

You can do something about this confusion; in my quoting of you I’ve provided a helpful guideline in this. Another way is to write @189. As you might know in the PS, the clear evidence trail and disclaimers are almost as important as the content.

This transmission is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error please notify the author immediately and delete all copies of this transmission

A Major Deception on Global Warming
by Frederick Seitz
Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996

Last week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations organization regarded by many as the best source of scientific information about the human impact on the earth’s climate, released “The Science of Climate Change 1995,” its first new report in five years. The report will surely be hailed as the latest and most authoritative statement on global warming. Policy makers and the press around the world will likely view the report as the basis for critical decisions on energy policy that would have an enormous impact on U.S. oil and gas prices and on the international economy.

This IPCC report, like all others, is held in such high regard largely because it has been peer-reviewed. That is, it has been read, discussed, modified and approved by an international body of experts. These scientists have laid their reputations on the line. But this report is not what it appears to be–it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.

A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and the published version reveals that key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version. The scientists were assuming that the IPCC would obey the IPCC Rules–a body of regulations that is supposed to govern the panel’s actions. Nothing in the IPCC Rules permits anyone to change a scientific report after it has been accepted by the panel of scientific contributors and the full IPCC.

The participating scientists accepted “The Science of Climate Change” in Madrid last November; the full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report–the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate–were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.

Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.

The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:

“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

“No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes.”

“Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

The reviewing scientists used this original language to keep themselves and the IPCC honest. I am in no position to know who made the major changes in Chapter 8; but the report’s lead author, Benjamin D. Santer, must presumably take the major responsibility.

IPCC reports are often called the “consensus” view. If they lead to carbon taxes and restraints on economic growth, they will have a major and almost certainly destructive impact on the economies of the world. Whatever the intent was of those who made these significant changes, their effect is to deceive policy makers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming.

If the IPCC is incapable of following its most basic procedures, it would be best to abandon the entire IPCC process, or at least that part that is concerned with the scientific evidence on climate change, and look for more reliable sources of advice to governments on this important question.

Mr. Seitz is president emeritus of Rockefeller University and chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute.

I have had enough of your stupid inane posts, you blather on about one topic then suddenly switch to another and blather on about it. If there are any relevant points to be made they are lost in noise.

An example of your stupidity

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty explicitly reserves the right of all signatories to pursue nuclear technologies, such as nuclear power stations, for peaceful purposes.

This is true but it goes much further than that, a signatory of the NNPT is also required to allow the IAEA inspectors full access to all facilities to ensure the signatory is not attempting to enrich uranium to weapons grade.

Let’s look at a couple of examples shall we.

Iraq has been a signatory since the 1970′s and with French assistance they began building a power station in Osirak (1981) however before the plant went online the Israeli’s blew the shit out of it.

Iran is also a signatory to the NNPT and with Russian assistance they have built a power station, the IAEA continually inspect the facility and along with the 16 American intelligence agencies state Iran is NOT trying to build a bomb however the drum beats of war grow louder and louder. Several Iranian scientists have been assassinated (shot to death or blown up) the Israeli’s have threatened to blow the shit out of this as well however the plant is now operational and if they were to blow it up the result would make Chernobyl look like a picnic.

So in this case the NNPT does not quite give Iran and Iraq the protection it should and definitely does not seem to fit in with your impressions.

Lets look a little deeper, the USA are signatories of the NNPT and the next time you get a chance why don’t you go and take a walking tour around Fallujah. Take note of how many babies are born without a brain or ones with brains on the outside of their heads or maybe just the ones that are still born through any other form of grotesque deformity.

Can you guess why they have all these deformities Smith? They have them because the USA a signatory of the NNPT use depleted uranium weapons so every time they drop a bomb radioactive material is dispersed into the surrounding environment. So what affect does the NNPT have here?

Digging a little deeper, The USA, France, UK and Russia are all signatories of the NNPT and they all boast a rather large nuclear arsenal so much for the NNPT hey Smith.

Digging a bit further still, there are 3 non signatories of the NNPT and they are India, Pakistan and Israel, all 3 countries have a nuclear arsenal in fact we sell uranium to India Smith so where is your stupid piece of paper now!

Israel has a nuclear reactor at Dimona which has not produced one milli watt power but does produce weapons grade material for the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

So when you crap on about the NNPT being this all powerful agreement it is not as Prezdint Boosch once said “its just a god dam piece of paper”.

Next time you engage your fingers before your brain I suggest you pause, think and research a little before you post.

Because thorium is unproven. The greenies that say we should just rely on “baseload wind” or “Baseload solar” or “carbon capture and storage” are being misleading because these technologies aren’t proven. It is wrong for nuclear advocates to say we should just use thorium because such Gen IV reactors are unproven

About 300 people died in the 24 hours after the Chernobyl disaster from radiation poisoning alone.

So far there isn’t ONE confirmed death from radiation at Fukushima. The workers that died DROWNED from the flooding caused by the tsunami.

Smith cancer takes a long time to kill, your attempts to downplay the Fukushima accident so as to keep Chernobyl as number one all so you can justify your stupid “lets build a nuke plant here” mentality is nothing short of pathetic.

The bottom line is this, accidents happen and if left with a choice of either spilling a barrel of CO2 or a barrel of toxic nuclear waste i know what i would prefer to why dont you shove your nuke plant up your arse.

Excuse me? You are proposing censorship of ideas that you don’t like?

I thought this forum respects free speech? If you only want to hear ideas you agree with, then it suggests you want an echo chamber and aren’t interested in engaging with challenging ideas.

Excuse me? free speech? i think you have had ample opportunity to express your ideas here Smith and after hearing them over and over again i think we have all had enough. You have voiced your ideas and they after careful assessment have been found to be nothing more than junk so stop your bitching and move on you stupid pathetic idiot.

Craker… given that it will take more than 10 years to get any reactors, and much longer to get a substantial proportion of energy generation in place in Australia – how much longer will it take for Thorium? The link you provided mostly confirms Adam’s comments. It is unproven (meaning untested) in the context of being a major fuel source for a country. Is anyone building a large Thorium reactor now? If not I’d say 2030 years at the earliest for Australia.

looks like you are cherry picking and straying from facts… so how many cancer deaths from Chernobyl?

As annoying as Adam Smith is he is correct in stating, using the data available, that Chernobyl was the worse disaster. I would point out to him that this may not be true in the long run but to my knowledge no one has produced a forecast (models again!) of the likely impact given the severity of exposure and number of people exposed to DNA altering radiation.

Crakar24:
September 21st, 2011 at 2:04 pm
GA in 216,
where did this come from, is this from you?
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
If this is yours then i think i might know what area you work in but that can be our little secret for now.
Cheers
Crakar24

Craker it was put there as an in-context joke about how Adam Smith is poor at maintaining the paper trail. Emails from public servants (I am not one, but am in contact with many… too many) all state the security level of the email.

just to be clear, SEC=UNCLASSIFIED is put on all personal and unclassified material. It is not department specific. I have mail to respond to right now right now from DEWR, MDBA and DAFF – all with SEC=UNCLASSIFIED

China and India are building them as we speak, the problem with Thorium is that it does not readily produce material to use in a nuke bomb which is why all the R&D into thorium stopped and Uranium kept going.

There is nothing complicated about Thorium we just need to develop it to a level to be used commercially and the benefits over uranium are quite large,

Weapons-grade fissionable material (233U) is harder to retrieve safely and clandestinely from a thorium reactor

Thorium produces 10 to 10,000 times less long-lived radioactive waste

Thorium comes out of the ground as a 100% pure, usable isotope, which does not require enrichment, whereas natural uranium contains only 0.7% fissionable U-235

This is not a difficult concept to grasp nuclear is old hat, dangerous and not worth the trouble.

In regards to Fukushima V Chernobyl it is difficult to compare one to the other based purely on loss of life (this ia a very neat cherry Pick by Smith). With Fukushima we have 3 reactors that are now China’d, the reactions are still taking place as i type the cooling water used to cool the chambers is flooding into the oceans and along with it radiation which is now spreading where ever the current takes it. This is a disaster beyond imagination. Cesium 137 has been detected in Toykyo that is how far the radiation has spread, the levels of radiation around the plant are the highest ever recorded.

Chernobyl was a level 7 accident, Fukushima is also a level 7 accident but no according to Smith Chernobyl was worse (lets all build another one) the person is a complete and utter fool.

A friend of mine has just informed me of something, if true, would have to be one of the most disturbing things i have ever heard. My friend claims that they heard the red devil state in parliament that:

“The carbon tax will ensure the QLD floods, the Japanese Tsunami and the NZ earthquakes will be a thing of the past”. Could someone please tell me my friend heard it wrong and the red devil did not say any such thing.

It could be Mark, it could be generally you tend to rely on cue cards when you are out of your depth and suddenly you have said something stupid…………..which simply means her minders who are the ones really in control actually think this to be true (i am talking about you Bob Brown (i know you read Jo’s blog)).

Either way this country is being run by the scientific illiterate who lack the most basic human ability of critical thought.

This is true but it goes much further than that, a signatory of the NNPT is also required to allow the IAEA inspectors full access to all facilities to ensure the signatory is not attempting to enrich uranium to weapons grade.

So what the hell is wrong with that? Why would Australia build nuclear power stations in order to actually build nuclear weapons? Do you seriously think Australia is the same as Iran?

As long as Australia accepts these compliance procedures then our neighbours have absolutely nothing to worry about. In fact I go further, if they objected to Australia pursuing a peaceful nuclear power program they would be attacking Australia’s sovereignty.

Let’s look at a couple of examples shall we.

Iraq has been a signatory since the 1970′s and with French assistance they began building a power station in Osirak (1981) however before the plant went online the Israeli’s blew the shit out of it.

LOL! And who is going to bomb Australia?

Iran is also a signatory to the NNPT and with Russian assistance they have built a power station, the IAEA continually inspect the facility and along with the 16 American intelligence agencies state Iran is NOT trying to build a bomb however the drum beats of war grow louder and louder. Several Iranian scientists have been assassinated (shot to death or blown up) the Israeli’s have threatened to blow the shit out of this as well however the plant is now operational and if they were to blow it up the result would make Chernobyl look like a picnic.

Iran has blatantly been in breeach of IAEA inspections for the best part of a decade. This scenario simply does not apply to Australia. I am astonished that you are even drawing such a comparison as if Australia is run by unelected theocrats instead of being one of the strongest democracies on earth.

So in this case the NNPT does not quite give Iran and Iraq the protection it should and definitely does not seem to fit in with your impressions.

BECAUSE THEY WERE CLEARLY USING A NUCLEAR POWER PROGRAM TO ACTUALLY DEVELOP NUCLEAR MATERIAL FOR WEAPONS!

Lets look a little deeper, the USA are signatories of the NNPT and the next time you get a chance why don’t you go and take a walking tour around Fallujah. Take note of how many babies are born without a brain or ones with brains on the outside of their heads or maybe just the ones that are still born through any other form of grotesque deformity.

What on earth does this have to do with Australia pursuing a domestic nuclear power program?

Can you guess why they have all these deformities Smith? They have them because the USA a signatory of the NNPT use depleted uranium weapons so every time they drop a bomb radioactive material is dispersed into the surrounding environment. So what affect does the NNPT have here?

More misleading nonsense! Australia has signed a convention to not use depleted uranium. But this HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AUSTRALIA’S RIGHT to develop nuclear power stations, which is explicitly protected in the NPT.

Digging a little deeper, The USA, France, UK and Russia are all signatories of the NNPT and they all boast a rather large nuclear arsenal so much for the NNPT hey Smith.

Oh FFS! These countries possessed nuclear weapons BEFORE the NPT had been developed. The NPT was to stop OTHER countries acquiring or producing nuclear weapons! This is another piece of distraction from the actual argument of Australia’s inalienable right to use nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes such as the reactor at Lucas Heights that is used for physics experiments and the production of radioisotopes for medicine.

Digging a bit further still, there are 3 non signatories of the NNPT and they are India, Pakistan and Israel, all 3 countries have a nuclear arsenal in fact we sell uranium to India Smith so where is your stupid piece of paper now!

Australia DOES NOT sell uranium to India for the very reason that it is not a signatory to the NPT! Spread lies elsewhere.

Israel has a nuclear reactor at Dimona which has not produced one milli watt power but does produce weapons grade material for the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

How the hell does this apply to Australia WHICH IS A SIGNATORY to the NPT!?

So when you crap on about the NNPT being this all powerful agreement it is not as Prezdint Boosch once said “its just a god dam piece of paper”.

The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty has acheived an enormous amount in stopping other countries from developing nuclear weapons.

Next time you engage your fingers before your brain I suggest you pause, think and research a little before you post.

I suggest you stop spreading lies and misleading nonsense. You should also make posts that are actually relevant to the proposition at hand, which is that Australia has an inalienable right to develop nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes such as the production of electricity.

This is why I call you an idiot.

This is why you have lost the debate because you posted a lot of misleading nonsense before reverting to abuse.

As annoying as Adam Smith is he is correct in stating, using the data available, that Chernobyl was the worse disaster. I would point out to him that this may not be true in the long run but to my knowledge no one has produced a forecast (models again!) of the likely impact given the severity of exposure and number of people exposed to DNA altering radiation.

Come on! The Chernobyl accident (which was really a man made disaster) involved the entire reactor vessel being blown apart. Some of the most highly radioactive substances from the reactor core were blown into the air and landed around the plant.

This is nothing like what happened to Fukushima where only some short lived radioactive substances escaped the containment vessels. There is no way that Fukushima will turn out to be worse than Chernobyl ever.

China and India are building them as we speak, the problem with Thorium is that it does not readily produce material to use in a nuke bomb which is why all the R&D into thorium stopped and Uranium kept going.

You can’t buy a thorium reactor off the plan. They are still experimental designs. Whereas you can go to Westinghouse and buy a Gen III+ reactor off the plan.

That is my point. If we are going to debate viable energy sources, we should debate what you can buy now, and not pie in the sky “baseload wind” versus “unproven nuclear”, which just turns the discussion into hypotheticals.

There is nothing complicated about Thorium we just need to develop it to a level to be used commercially and the benefits over uranium are quite large,

Well there you go, you said it yourself “we just need to develop it”. That costs time and billions of dollars that could be better spent actually building reactors that we know work now. I am not saying that Thorium isn’t an option, but it is a FUTURE option that requires research and development. Well our need for energy is more urgent than that. Let a country experienced in nuclear technologies like France, Japan or the U.S. prove Thorium before we invest in it when it is proven.

Weapons-grade fissionable material (233U) is harder to retrieve safely and clandestinely from a thorium reactor

This is not a difficult concept to grasp nuclear is old hat, dangerous and not worth the trouble.

Completely wrong. Nuclear is safer than coal. If you are worried about energy sources that are dangerous, you should be demanding every coal power station in the world be shut down. Coal kills more people in a month than all nuclear reactors have in the last 60 years.

In regards to Fukushima V Chernobyl it is difficult to compare one to the other based purely on loss of life (this ia a very neat cherry Pick by Smith).

Absolute nonsense. Chernobyl killed 300 people on the day of explosion. Fukushima has so far killed I think 7 people from NON radiation related incidents at the plant, e.g. people drowning, some others suffocated due to a fire. Another fell.

With Fukushima we have 3 reactors that are now China’d,

What on earth do you mean by this? The Fukushima reactors did not go through a full meltdown. There was partial melting of the fuel rods. Be more precise.

the reactions are still taking place as i type the cooling water used to cool the chambers is flooding into the oceans and along with it radiation which is now spreading where ever the current takes it.

This is complete and utter nonsense. The nuclear reactions stopped as soon as the control rods automatically scrammed into the reactor vessels. The reactor vessels are being flooded with sea water. The chambers aren’t flooding into the ocean! What misleading nonsense.

This is a disaster beyond imagination. Cesium 137 has been detected in Toykyo that is how far the radiation has spread, the levels of radiation around the plant are the highest ever recorded.

Of course the radiation levels near the plant are the highest recorded, because the plant has never before been flooded with a 10 metre wave that shut down the plant’s cooling systems!

Chernobyl was a level 7 accident, Fukushima is also a level 7 accident but no according to Smith Chernobyl was worse (lets all build another one) the person is a complete and utter fool.

The scale only GOES to Level 7, so of course you can have incidents of varying magnitude that will both count as Level 7 incidents!

Again you have reverted abuse which demonstrates how weak you realise your position is.

A friend of mine has just informed me of something, if true, would have to be one of the most disturbing things i have ever heard. My friend claims that they heard the red devil state in parliament that:

“The carbon tax will ensure the QLD floods, the Japanese Tsunami and the NZ earthquakes will be a thing of the past”. Could someone please tell me my friend heard it wrong and the red devil did not say any such thing.

Adam @ 233 (yes I had to hunt down a reference to my post but no matter).

I agree. All evidence is the Chernobyl is worse – from the nature of the incident to the best evidence of the future prognosis. I was making a simple point that you don’t know that this is true long term. Show me evidence (I’m a scientist and I can cope with models) of your position. Likely though your position is… you still have provided no data or experimental evidence.

Show me evidence (I’m a scientist and I can cope with models) of your position. Likely though your position is… you still have provided no data or experimental evidence.

It simply defies logic to suggest that a scenario where a limited amount of radioactive material essentially leaked from the reactors could be the same as a situation where the entire reactor vessel was blown apart, thus exposing the entire contents of the reactor core to the environment.

That simply hasn’t happened a Fukushima, it it is impossible for it to happen.

I am in no way detracting from the fact what happened at Fukushima was a tragic event and shows the risks associated with operating 40 year old reactors. But some people in this thread have equated Fukushima with Chernobyl which is astonishingly misleading (especially for a website that prides itself on rational discussion).

I strongly encourage epidemiological research into Fukushima, because it is essential that we get as much information we can about the effects of radiation leakage in these scenarios.

But look at Three Miles Island. The whole result of that, according to the best longitudinal studies, is that it possibly resulted in ONE extra case of cancer in the local population.

true enough and I never contradicted that view. Just pointing out that you have no supporting evidence. Frequently what seems like the common sense answer is the wrong answer. Common sense is human’s assessing without data and suffers from errors of perception. So, in short, no data, no proof.

Adam, Abbotts slip-of-the-tongue about “weightless” gas was trivial and irrelevant to policy.

It wasn’t a slip up at all! Here is a different occasion from two weeks earlier when Abbott has also made the same claim that carbon dioxide is weightless:

It fell to Andrew Cullen, a young cleaner with an inquisitive mind, to ask the question of Tony Abbott when the Opposition Leader stood before a group of workers in their lunch room at a South Dandenong engine factory this week. ”That’s a good question!” Abbott replied, engaging not just Cullen but the entire room.

”It’s actually pretty hard to do this because carbon dioxide is invisible and it’s weightless and you can’t smell it,” Abbott began, projecting frankness.

Someone who thinks that carbon dioxide is weightless is completely unsuited to being Prime Minister.

We don’t call Gillard illiterate because she said “hyper-bowl”.

I didn’t call Abbott illiterate at all. I just pointed out that his understanding of science is extremely limited.

Gillard actually pronounced “hyperbole” as “hyper-bowl” to make fun of the Manager of Opposition business Christopher Pyne who had mispronounced the term during parliament in the previous week. It was a kind of in-joke, but yes I concede that it made the PM look funny if you didn’t understand the context.

I find it funny how [snip] lidiots ike Smiff can condone the assassination of scientists, the sabotage of nuclear power plant software (Stuxnet) and continual threats of war against a country that has not attacked anyone on over 200 years and whats more has signed and is oblidging with the conditions of the NNPT. Whereas a nuclear armed country that is on a continual war footing with another nuclear armed country of which neither have signed the NNPT are given nuclear material and can build nuclear reactors to their hearts content with the blessing of other NNPT signatories.

But what i find most fascinating about this particular idiot is that they cry foul if you tell them to stop their inane gibberish with “where is my freedom of speech” whilst at the same time tries to stomp on anyone who dares to disagree from a great height. The hypocrisy is deafening.

Take the chernobyl V Fukushima debate, so far the idiot has compared the two by

1, Number of intial deaths
2, Number of long term deaths (which to everyone bar them is stupid)
3, The size of the explosion

But not once have they compared the amount of radiation that has been released, they even go to the absurd lengths to say there was only a partial melt down………a f&&%$ing partial melt down? Oh well that makes it alright then, the X thousands of litres of contaminated water pouring out of the containment vessels as they tried to cool it was from a “partial melt down” the radiated water that escaped into the ocean was from a partial melt down, no one can go within 20K’s of the plant because of partial melt down, farmers beyond this had to kill their cattle because of a partial melt down, rice farmers can never go back to their land and produce food stuffs because of a partial melt down.

May 25 (Bloomberg) — Tokyo Electric Power Co. said the containment chambers of damaged reactors at its Fukushima nuclear plant were likely breached, identifying additional source of radiation leaks that may exceed Chernobyl.

Tepco’s analysis shows the No. 1 chamber has one hole and the No. 2 unit has two breaches, according to a report filed to a Japanese nuclear watchdog. Cooling systems may have been breached at the No. 3 reactor at the site, Tepco said.

“The breaches were created awhile ago, so they won’t cause rapid increases in radiation doses,” said Ken Nakajima, a professor of nuclear engineering at Kyoto University who specializes in reactor safety. “However, I’m concerned about a possible increase in tainted water leaking from the holes, which may lead to contamination of groundwater and seawater.”

In the end 3 reactors melted down and this is just from a 10 second google search something an idiot cannot do, but noooooooooooooooooo its only a partial meltdown………

[I should snip the bad words out. I will snip them out next time. ] ED
I’ve snipped them –JN

“…The UK 2011 Census takes place on the 27th of March. Before then it is vitally important the people be warned about this census. The ONS (Office for National Statistics) have contracted Lockheed Martin to run this Census.

Lockheed Martin is the worlds second largest Arms producer. They have been charged with illegally spying on US & UK citizens. They work with the CIA and FBI. In spite of their lengthy crimes against humanity, the ONS assures us that Lockheed are to be trusted with UK census data!

It is illegal for UK intelligence to spy on the population without a warrant, it is not illegal for US intelligence to spy on the UK population, and vice versa.
In the past the US tapped UK phone lines, and the UK tapped US phone lines, the US intelligence then legally passes the information onto the UK, and vice versa. This sort of information gathering happens between many “friendly” countries.

Lockheed Martin also run the Canadian census. It is suspected that the information gathered from the Canadian census was then passed back to Canadian intelligence via the US intelligence services.

Under the US patriot act, the US government has access to ALL information held by all US companies. Lockheed Martin is a US company.
The ONS assures us all that Lockheed will not pass on UK census data!
Given Lockheed’s lengthy and well documented total disregard for the law, the ONS have no grounding to make such an assurance!

Lockheed have in the past paid bribes to individuals to secure contracts. Bearing this in mind, I think the ONS should be investigated to see if they or any of their staff have received bribes from Lockheed to secure this very lucrative contract.
Lockheed will receive £150 million of UK Tax payers money for their part in this census. But this is nothing compared to what they could receive for the sale of the information.
I have at this stage established that Lockheed Martin have absolutely no social conscience, moral fibre or scruples! They are one of the most disreputable companies in the world. They have had thousands of law suits filed against them, everything from racial discrimination to fraud. But on the whole, they are above the law! they can do what they want in most instances, with no fear of prosecution!

They actually lobbied for the illegal war in Iraq, they have been the main arms suppliers to the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. This makes them morally responsible for the murder of over a million human beings!
And the ONS tell us out private information is safe with these people!!!! HELLO!!!

It is my belief that the ONS have acted illegally, and with total disregard to the UK populations privacy and safety, by giving this contract to these monsters!

I apologise for my outburst ED dont worry there will not be a next time as i have now washed my hands of Smith. My impression of Smith is that they are a 16 year old child with all the government indoctrination clearly embedded in the shrivelled up pea rattling around in their head.

The only way they can function is in a world where they are constantly told what to do, they listen to what the *authority* tells them and they accept it. A good example is “there was no melt down at Fukushima coz the government said so” or “Lets bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” dont worry Smith you will get your chance soon enough to stop the evil Iranians just make sure you get in line for your rifle like everyone else.

People like Smith squeal like a pig when someone tells them they are wrong with “wheres my freedom of speech” but yet go out of their way to shut down anyone who disagrees.

The opinions they express are not their own they are merely told what to think which is why they are so dogmatic. Because the idea was not theirs to begin with they cannot logically see the flaws and evolve the idea into a useful one, their world is black and white, right or wrong with nothing in between.

The question is how do you handle such a person? do you shut them down…..no of course not because that would simply feed the delusion………..i suggest you limit the amount of posts they can make, say no more than 1 every hour that should reduce the amount of noise on each thread and will stop my in box from clogging up with junk.

On the other hand if quantity not quality is what you are after then i suggest you simply do nothing and let Smith continue on their present course of action, mind you i think you would get a better result with a cage full of monkies each with a typewriter but in the end i am just a visitor here so who am i to make such a suggestion

(1) That the proposed legislation on the Carbon Tax be not processed on the basis that it is against Australia’s National Interest and denies the wishes of the majority of voters who have clearly stated they object to it.

(2) That a member in an electorate who been made aware that the majority of his Constituents are against the Carbon Tax must comply and either vote against the Bill or Abstain if it is presented to the Parliament.

How agnorant a statement is that,because I know,that they will be a court-case before the High-court over the legality of said carbon-tax bills,or is she going to attempt to overwrite a High Court decision again? That isn’t working so well with Malaysia.

“Government capable of wiretapping millions of encrypted sessions, including those secured by IE, Microsoft’s SSL, others.

You probably feel safe when you see the padlock on your browser window indicating secure communication with your bank or e-mail account. You probably think your users are safe if they are accessing your network over your SSL VPN. What if instead of worrying about man-in-the-middle attacks, it became government-spy-in-the-middle eavesdropping? Is Big Brother spying on you? Before I’m done showing you these surveillance products, you will probably be ticked for both security and privacy reasons.

*Note and hint that the country information (“US”) shown by the browsers refers to the corporation that obtained the certificate (Bank of America), not the location of the Certificate Authority (CA).

The Extended Validation Certificates (EV) produces the green bar in most modern browsers. In a purely hypothetical example, the U.S. government can force a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) to give them a publicly trusted certification for http://www.amazon.com. They then poison your DNS and route your traffic for http://www.amazon.com to a site they own that has the fake certification installed, explains Tyson Kopczynski, a security/PKI consultant and another Microsoft Subnet blogger. Your browser then gives you that pretty green bar or little lock and you think everything is cool, safe and secure. Or… they can put a device between you and your target and then perform SSL interception.

Two researchers, Chris Soghoian and Sid Stamm reported on an industry claim that governments could get “court orders” giving them access to falsified cryptographic credentials (spy certs). If National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC) is implemented, the threat seems to intensify if the government itself is running the PKI.

What this means is that an eavesdropper who can obtain fake certificates from any CA can successfully impersonate every encrypted website you might visit. And you have no way of knowing that you haven’t landed on the authentic, actual site. Most browsers silently accept new certificates from any valid authority, even sites for which certificates have already been obtained. An eavesdropper with fake certificates and access to a target’s net connection can quietly negotiate a “man-in-the-middle” (MITM) attack, observing and recording all encrypted web traffic while the user is clueless that it’s happening.

Are there really eavesdroppers out there — spies or law enforcement agencies using spy certificates to intercept encrypted web traffic? Are there really wiretapping conventions for eavesdroppers? Oh yes, the next is in October 2010, but IIS World Americas is open only to “law enforcement, intelligence, homeland security analysts and telecom operators responsible for lawful interception, electronic investigations and network intelligence.” There are many vendors of products that assist the government in spying, but the HACKING TEAM and Packet Forensics are two that should send an eerie eavesdropping chill up your spine.

(1) That the proposed legislation on the Carbon Tax be not processed on the basis that it is against Australia’s National Interest and denies the wishes of the majority of voters who have clearly stated they object to it.

The Emissions Trading Scheme in the Clean Energy bills is in the nation’s interest because it will ensure that we reduce emissions at the lowest cost to the economy, which ultimately means the lowest cost for tax payers.

The last election delivered a hung parliament which ultimately supported Julia Gillard to remain as Prime Minister (in part because of Tony Abbott’s crap negotiation skills). Gillard is well within her rights and powers to present any policy she likes to the parliament and the parliament can vote for or against it.

I reject the implication that Governments should only enact policies that have popular support. If that was the principle all governments had to stick by they could only implement policies they promised at the previous election, irrespective of changed circumstances. And it would also mean that governments couldn’t implement good but unpopular policies, like floating the dollar, de-regulating banking, cutting tariffs, privatising Qantas etc.

If all we want Governments to do is what is popular, we would end up like Greece where the government spends too much on services but doesn’t bother to get people to pay the taxes required to fund that expenditure. This is a recipe for economic insanity.

(2) That a member in an electorate who been made aware that the majority of his Constituents are against the Carbon Tax must comply and either vote against the Bill or Abstain if it is presented to the Parliament.

Australia’s political system has NEVER operated on the principle that MPs must vote the way a majority of their constituents want. We elect MPs at elections who are members of parties, what we ultimately vote for (or against) is a party.

In fact I suspect that most Australians can’t name their local MP, but they would be more likely to be able to name the party that they are affiliated with.

The Emissions Trading Scheme in the Clean Energy bills is in the nation’s interest because it will ensure that we reduce emissions at the lowest cost to the economy, which ultimately means the lowest cost for tax payers.

And we have not seen one shred of proof that proves this beyond the labor propaganda,which has so many holes in it,A semi-trailer could fit through the holes. The GST was taken to an election and voted on,and this is a bigger tax by far. Explain to me if it’s proven that it’s in the nation’s interest why is it being rammed through,against the complaints of major industry,and without an adequate period for submissions to the Joint Select Committe on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation? 6 days is not enough time for everyone,in Australia to submit submissions to the Joint Select Committe on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation.

And we have not seen one shred of proof that proves this beyond the labor propaganda,which has so many holes in it

The proposition that a market mechanism will be cheaper than the Coalition’s Direct Action policy is simply a fact based on fundamental economics. If there was a way for direct subsidies to cut emissions at a cheaper cost than a market price we would’ve already found it and the Government could just spend billions on it. But there is no perfect method for all situations that takes into account all possible economic costs. That’s why we need a market price so that the purchasing decisions of thousands of businesses and millions of consumers drives the investment towards lower polluting technologies and processes.

The GST was taken to an election and voted on,and this is a bigger tax by far.

Two points:
1) The Coalition actually lost the popular 2 party preferred vote in 1998. Labor won 50.98% of the vote and the Coalition won 49.02%. More people voted against the GST than for it, so by your standard the GST should’ve never been enacted.

2) The Emissions Trading Scheme IS NOT a bigger tax than the GST! In its first year the ETS will raise $7.4 billion, 60% of this money is returned as income tax cuts and increased family payments. In the first year of the GST it raised $24 billion, and this year it will raise almost $49 billion!

The ETS is a much smaller tax than the GST, and the GST is estimated to increase at a faster rate than the ETS because the ETS is a consumption tax whereas the ETS is designed to reduce the production of carbon pollution.

Explain to me if it’s proven that it’s in the nation’s interest why is it being rammed through,

The ETS is not being rammed through. The Australian parliament has bee debating what to do about this issue back and forth since late 2006. At the 2007 election both Labor and the Coalition proposed an ETS. The previous parliament tired to legislate an ETS but the bills were rejected twice (they became a double dissolution trigger). In total there has been 13 parliamentary committees on pricing carbon pollution. The draft bills were released in August, and the House of Representatives debate on them has already gone on for about 13 hours. The final vote on the bills in the House of Representatives won’t occur until November.

Compare that to the WorkChoices bills that were introduced to the House of Representatives and were given Royal Assent just 30 days later! This included a Senate committee on the bills that went for ONE DAY!

against the complaints of major industry,and without an adequate period for submissions to the Joint Select Committe on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation? 6 days is not enough time for everyone,in Australia to submit submissions to the Joint Select Committe on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation.

This is just stating a fact. Emissions permits will be a property right under the constitution, so if any government wants to end the ETS it would have to effectively buy back all the permits “on just terms” (i.e. with adequate compensation to comply with that constitutional test). This would effectively mean the federal government would be handing over billions and billions effectively for nothing.

No government would ever be stupid enough to spend all that money on nothing. Hence it won’t happen, hence Gillard is right when she says that once the ETS is enacted no government will ever repeal it.

The proposition that a market mechanism will be cheaper than the Coalition’s Direct Action policy is simply a fact based on fundamental economics. If there was a way for direct subsidies to cut emissions at a cheaper cost than a market price we would’ve already found it and the Government could just spend billions on it

That’s why we need a market price so that the purchasing decisions of thousands of businesses and millions of consumers drives the investment towards lower polluting technologies and processes.

That assuming the businesses we have now don’t uproot and leave the country. I know for a fact that some of them have been buying land in India and they aren’t stupid,so it’s highly likely that they’ll pull out of the country. Then how will there purchasing decisions drive the investment?

Does that include the bilions theyve spent trying to advertise the Tax through the media?

There was a month for people to make submissions on the draft bills.

I’m not talking about the draft bills I’m talking about this The Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation was established under a resolution of appointmentpassed by the House of Representatives on the 14 September 2011 and the Senate on the 15 September 2011 to inquire into and report on the provisions of the attached bills.

The Committee invites interested persons and organisations to make submissions by Thursday 22 September 2011 .

Neither you or Ms Gillard has the right to say what a future government will do,or not do

No government would ever be stupid enough to spend all that money on nothing

This govrnment has spend all it’s money on a tax that we weren’t going to have,based on inaccurate data,and has blatany lied to everyone about said tax,or do you want a link to Ms Gillard’s infamous speech “there shall be no carbon tax under the government I lead” Bringing it such a tax after the election,when she said that,is a lie of the highest order.

That assuming the businesses we have now don’t uproot and leave the country. I know for a fact that some of them have been buying land in India and they aren’t stupid,so it’s highly likely that they’ll pull out of the country. Then how will there purchasing decisions drive the investment?

How exactly are mining companies going to mine Australian resources from India?
How exactly are the owners of power generators going to generate electricity in India and send it to Australia?

I know for a fact that claims of massive industrial loses are laughable. And just remember that the two biggest steel makers in Australia have endorsed the carbon price and the $300 million of industry assistance that goes along with it!

Does that include the bilions theyve spent trying to advertise the Tax through the media?

Billions? You can’t just make up your own figures mate. The government has spent about $25 million advertising the Clean Energy Future policy. This compares with the previous government that spent $200 million advertising the GST, and about $230 million advertising WorkChoices.

Neither you or Ms Gillard has the right to say what a future government will do,or not do

I’m just explaining what WILL happen. No federal government will spend billions of dollars on NOTHING. That’s why the ETS will never be ended.

This govrnment has spend all it’s money on a tax that we weren’t going to have,

This is an oxymoron. Government’s don’t spend money on taxes. Cutting taxes is what ‘costs’ money by reducing future revenues.

based on inaccurate data,and has blatany lied to everyone about said tax,or do you want a link to Ms Gillard’s infamous speech “there shall be no carbon tax under the government I lead” Bringing it such a tax after the election,when she said that,is a lie of the highest order.

Gillard has stuck to her word because what she is proposing isn’t a carbon tax, it is an emissions trading scheme which starts at a fixed price and shifts to a floating price from July 1, 2015.

If you are so worried about dishonest politicians, what about the 15 Coalition Senators in the parliament that were elected in 2007 on a policy of supporting an ETS, yet have now voted against an ETS twice and seem set to do so again. Why aren’t you saying they should resign?

What about John Howard who never said anything about WorkChoices during the 2004 election, was that a problem?

It seems you actually couldn’t care less about politicians changing their positions (which arguably hasn’t occurred in this case) what you are against is politicians changing their policies to positions you don’t agree with. You know, like Howard who said we would “never, ever” have a GST, before legislating one just 4 years later, even though more Australians voted against it than for it.

There are many forms of abuse, one form is to make numerous, inane, pointless, incoherent, off topic posts in a very short frame of time.

Another form is to dogmatically refuse to accept that one is incorrect by simply ignoring the facts and restating over and over and over again one’s position then claim victory because the respondent gives up debating you.

Another form is inferred, for example if one was to make a long post which primarily consisted of blockquotes from another post with nothing more than a one line response. This gives the impression of arrogance and therefore abuse.

(Since you did not complain by e-mail.Your complaining comment here is snipped) CTS

Fine. But according to the forum’s rules, you should also remove all of post 247 which is simply abuse directed at me.

There is also nothing in the forum’s rules that says posters must first complain before an abusive post will be deleted.

(I left that post there for a reason,that I should not have to explain to you over) CTS

(You are wearing out my patience over your continual complaining about how moderators should act.I suggest that you either make a formal e-mail complaint or stop complaining in the threads.It is my last warning.Further complaints WILL be snipped out entirely) CTS

The fact that i likened your intellectual capacity to that of a shrivelled up pea is not abuse, it is a comparison nothing more nothing less. I exercised my right to freedom of speech and made a comparison.

(Please stop it! Going on and on about Adam in this way.Will provoke serious moderation action.) CTS

(Remember this?

I apologise for my outburst ED dont worry there will not be a next time as i have now washed my hands of Smith. My impression of Smith is that they are a 16 year old child with all the government indoctrination clearly embedded in the shrivelled up pea rattling around in their head.

Thats true i did say that but i have never been one to keep a promise………..well one as big as that at least. Seriously i promise i will no longer refer to Adam as a pea brain in regards to washing my hands some stains are hard to remove.

I apologise for my outburst ED dont worry there will not be a next time as i have now washed my hands of Smith. My impression of Smith is that they are a 16 year old child with all the government indoctrination clearly embedded in the shrivelled up pea rattling around in their head.

Cheers

Crakar24

(I understand why you are unhappy with him.But he is not worth all the effort to scream at him.Plus it contributes to a less civil thread) CTS

Gillard has stuck to her word because what she is proposing isn’t a carbon tax, it is an emissions trading scheme which starts at a fixed price and shifts to a floating price from July 1, 2015.

Actually it’ an carbon tax leading into an ETS. Ms Gilard admits this in a press conference as well. She is also on record as referring it it as a carbon tax.

This is an oxymoron. Government’s don’t spend money on taxes. Cutting taxes is what ‘costs’ money by reducing future revenues

.

Is that why we are 150 billion in debt as the moment and increasing?

I know for a fact that claims of massive industrial loses are laughable. And just remember that the two biggest steel makers in Australia have endorsed the carbon price and the $300 million of industry assistance that goes along with it

And how just do you know this for a fact,in advance? yoiu may not have seen this
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
..End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
….THE world’s largest aluminium company, Rusal, has launched a scathing attack on the Gillard Government’s carbon tax and emissions scheme, saying it puts its key Queensland project at risk.
In a submission to the Federal Government, Rusal said the Clean Energy Legislative Package – the carbon tax and Emissions Trading Scheme – was a threat to the viability of the Russian group’s major investment in Australia.

Rusal owns 20 per cent of the giant Queensland Alumina Refinery (QAL) at Gladstone, the second-largest alumina refinery in the world, which employs 1800 people and ships alumina to Siberia for smelting. Also BHP has blasted this as a dead-end tax.

No federal government will spend billions of dollars on NOTHING. That’s why the ETS will never be ended.

Again you can’t say that. I know for a fact that the tax will be taken to the high court on numerous issues,and the first thing they are going to want is a injunction of the perchase and sale of carbon Permits until the matters are sorted out,which could go on for some time. Also the possibility of the tax going into an ETS is highly doubtful,given the failings of our present government as now her own Independents are calling that the PM should resign. “Frankly it is a government and a prime minster who should resign.”"Andrew Wilkie. Daily Telegraph sept 23.

Again you can’t say that. I know for a fact that the tax will be taken to the high court on numerous issues,

See how you just asserted you know this for a fact? That’s why I felt I could do the same.

and the first thing they are going to want is a injunction of the perchase and sale of carbon Permits until the matters are sorted out,which could go on for some time. Also the possibility of the tax going into an ETS is highly doubtful,given the failings of our present government as now her own Independents are calling that the PM should resign. “Frankly it is a government and a prime minster who should resign.””Andrew Wilkie. Daily Telegraph sept 23.

Oh come off it! It was Tony Abbott that called for Gillard to resign, not Andrew Wilkie! Here is the full quote from the article:

Earlier this morning Opposition Leader Tony Abbott kicked off debate on the issue, saying the government had “manifestly failed” to protect Australia’s borders. He called on Ms Gillard, and the government, to resign.

I didn’t mention Australia’s debt level,that’s your words not mine. I just brought up the fact that this government has sepnt the surplus we has under the howard government and has had to ask for 3 extension to the upper debt limit in parliament.

See how you just asserted you know this for a fact? That’s why I felt I could do the same

I know this because I have signed up to support such courtcases,and have access to data that you don’t. I am not asserting anything,but I feel that posting such information here would be determental to our interests at this point.

I didn’t mention Australia’s debt level,that’s your words not mine. I just brought up the fact that this government has sepnt the surplus we has under the howard government and has had to ask for 3 extension to the upper debt limit in parliament.

Of course it spent the surplus because we went through the Global Financial Crisis where the world economy contracted for the first time since 1945. Unlike every other developed country on the planet, Australia didn’t go into a recession in part because of this spending!

If the government didn’t spend the surplus (and then more), there would’ve been an extra 200,000 to 300,000 people unemployed.

Now if you want to say that it is more important for governments to run surpluses all the time than worry about the unemployment rate or the state of the world economy, then you are free to build that argument.

But I will oppose such arguments, because governments can always repay money back when the economy starts growing again. What governments are hopeless at doing is patching together people’s lives if they have been unemployed for 6 months or a year; especially if the person is already over 45 years of age. Unemployment leads to more social dislocation than anything else in society.

So again, there’s a discussion to be had for this. But I will be on the side of governments going into some debt in order to save jobs. I also support the governments current policy of pulling back spending now in order to close the deficit and start paying the debt back.

If the government was spending at the same rate as last year economic growth would be 2% higher. But they aren’t doing that, they are trying to close the deficit as quickly as possible.

I know this because I have signed up to support such courtcases,and have access to data that you don’t. I am not asserting anything,but I feel that posting such information here would be determental to our interests at this point.

Signing a petition is not factual evidence that the legislation is constitutionally objectionable.

If there were obvious constitutional flaws in the legislation the Clerk of the House of Representatives wouldn’t of allowed the bills to be presented to parliament.

Basically a company collected the carbon credits ,then proceeded to transfer 1mill+ out of the country. Said company is reported as attempting to set up “phoenix companies” to collect the same thing. Pino Fiorentino, Administrator and Liquidator of Well Being Green,complains to the the government about it,and they don’t want anything to do with it.

If Islamic banks can work without charging interest on credit which is never has the interest portion issued into circulation, why can’t Western Banks?

The Christian code of ethics also prohibits the charging of interest.

“…Islamic banks have been eating into the profits of conventional banks in the Middle East because: they don’t charge interest (Shariah Law), they are growing very rapidly, and (in these catastrophic economic times) they are more stable than western banks.

The New York Times article “Islamic banking rises on oil wealth, drawing non-Muslims” ( November 22, 2007) reported: “Rising oil wealth is lifting Islamic banking – which adheres to the laws of the Koran and its prohibition against charging interest – into the financial mainstream. . . . In addition to Islamic loans, there are Islamic bonds, Islamic credit cards …In Islamic banking, financiers are required to share borrowers’ risks, meaning that depositors are treated more like shareholders, earning a portion of profits. …And while the biggest Islamic banks are in the wealthy Gulf states, the most attractive potential markets are in Turkey and North Africa and among European Muslims… .”

If there were obvious constitutional flaws in the legislation the Clerk of the House of Representatives wouldn’t of allowed the bills to be presented to parliament.

But the Clerk of the House is only human and naturally can miss things. If she missed a no-so obvious constitional flaw and said flaw is still in there,as he,or she can’t catch everything,and now it’s progressed too far along..

But the Clerk of the House is only human and naturally can miss things. If she missed a no-so obvious constitional flaw and said flaw is still in there,as he,or she can’t catch everything,and now it’s progressed too far along..

If something is a “not so obvious onstitional flaw” then it can only be determined by the High Court.

I have heard the opposition making every claim under the sun about the bills, but unconstitutionality hasn’t been one of them.

If the Opposition thinks the bills are unconstitutional it is their duty to bring that to the attention of the parliament.

If that’s true I still don’t see how we can change it overnight. We have to do the best with what we have now,flawed as it is and work towards change.

It isn’t true in the slightest. It is just an absurd conspiracy theory that gets bandied about. We should be proud of the fact that our High Court is one of the best constitutional courts in the world.

Why should I believe anything in a video about the so called invalidity of the Australian constitution which has a picture of the United States constitution as the background image!?

If they can’t get that simple detail right, why should I trust them to get anything right?

and you’ve been censored here mulitple times for making misgided accustations and attempting to lead the thread away from the topic at hand. By this standard why should any of us here trust ANYTHING you say? As I said,words aren’t proof,and proof is the ONLY thing I’ll believe.

So let me get this right. It is OK to spam this forum with conspiracy theories about the Australian constitution, but it isn’t OK to point out that they are abject wackaloonery?

Whatever you reckon mate.

You have failed to point that about so far,as I asked for proof,which you have failed to provide.

Why should I believe anything in a video about the so called invalidity of the Australian constitution which has a picture of the United States constitution as the background image!?

Pointing out that they have a backgrounds picture of the united States flag in also not proof, Until you provide proof not words,and it beter be good proof as well,because I will have it checked over by a lawyer on the issue.

‘Adam Smith’ might as well know that his/her internet ‘footprint’ [could] expose an inappropriate use of taxpayer funded parliamentary resources. A future government and Royal Commission …[snip lets not get too personal OK]